Senator Thune Introducing Another National Reciprocity Bill

SEIndSAM

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
May 14, 2011
97,884
113
Ripley County
I would love for it to happen, but it's not gonna make it. The Liberals still have a majority in the Senate and would kill it if it makes it's way to the floor.
 

MattCFII

Marksman
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Jul 12, 2008
638
18
Danville
Bayh voted for it, as did 19 other Democrats the first time. Lugar and another Republican bailed and vote against it, which were the two votes needed to pass it. You can't depend on Republicans to vote correctly on gun rights, Lugar and Coats are examples (although Coats claims he's seen the light, time will tell). I'm never voting for Lugar!

Now I don't know how many of those Democrats voted yes to bump their NRA ratings because it was a long shot to pass, but it came close and if we kept the pressure on them it might actually happen this time.
 

mshogren

Marksman
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Nov 20, 2010
459
18
Arcadia
I like the idea, but I am not sure we really want the FEDERAL Government getting anymore in the gun law business than they already are.

This is really a State's Rights thing that the Fed's should just keep their nose out of...

Mark
 

88E30M50

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Dec 29, 2008
19,135
149
Greenwood, IN
Realistically, we already have that law. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires states to recognize the judgments and proceedings of other states. If Indiana judges you to be fit to carry, then other states should extend you the same rights they do with their own citizens who hold a LTCH.
 

IndyGlockMan

Expert
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Jul 19, 2011
1,943
38
Fishers
Realistically, we already have that law. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires states to recognize the judgments and proceedings of other states. If Indiana judges you to be fit to carry, then other states should extend you the same rights they do with their own citizens who hold a LTCH.


If I'm not mistaken, not every state wrote their own constitution the same as the US Constitution. I'm not an expert, I just remember some radio show discussion about the differences between the states constitutions and that they don't have to go along with what other states condone or license.


I'd like to see a bill to have a federal license to carry a handgun in every state.
If the feds can trump states with their drug laws, why not a handgun carry law?
If citizens can go through the process to be approved for class 3 weapons, why not expand that process to a federal handgun carry permit?
Sorry, just thinking out loud. :twocents:
 

MattCFII

Marksman
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Jul 12, 2008
638
18
Danville
Guys, I'm a believer that the 2nd Amendment should be your carry permit. Now that's too radical for most politicians I'm sure, but I think some post McDonald cases are actually going to find in our favor that carry is a right (as in "bare arms"). In general the U.S. Constitution trumps state law, even state constitutional when the right is "incorporated" as McDonald confirmed.

If we have to get the Thune amendment/bill to make this happen, I'm ok with that. We lost our rights incrementally and we are gaining them back the same way, just faster!

Driving isn't a right and usually kills more people a year than guns, yet a driver's license issued by one state with lax requirements is still recognized by all the other states, even when it is tougher to get a license in the others. And this is Constitutionally unprotected unlike the RKBA.

One other thing before I go to bed, the first time Thune had to try as an amendment to a bill which was why he needed the 3/5 majority. This time he would only need a simple majority to get it out of the Senate. This could work if we put our political backs into it. Thune wrote a no b.s. proposal the first time without extra requirements, just that everybody had to recongize every one else's and you had to follow the other state's laws while carrying there. Makes sense to me.
 
Last edited:

Bunnykid68

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Mar 2, 2010
23,512
83
Cave of Caerbannog
Do you really want to get any more involved with the federal government than you already have to be? I don't think anything good can become of a bill like that if it is passed. just one more list for everyone to be put on.
 

MattCFII

Marksman
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Jul 12, 2008
638
18
Danville
Do you really want to get any more involved with the federal government than you already have to be? I don't think anything good can become of a bill like that if it is passed. just one more list for everyone to be put on.

To get my LTCH recongized by all 50 states, YES, as long as it doesn't mess with each individuals' states regulations or even simplifies them. Again, the 2nd Amendment is federal and is the only thing that saved DC and Chicago. Think about it, it would allow us to carry in Ohio without having to get a Utah, Florida, or Ohio permit. We could carry in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California and even Illinois if we played this right. It could potentially give those in may issue states a way to get their rights back.

Something like that is never going to happen unless it happens on the federal level, either legislatively or judicially. We are winning right now, we need to try to get this down and get our rights back. It needs to happen so we as a nation of gun owners can exercise our rights with the ability to bypass the stupid patchwork permit (a.k.a. Rights Tax) system. If I can drive a deadiler weapon in any state with a license for an "privilege" because of federal law, I want to be able to do the same with a right either through the courts recognizing it or a federal law.

In general ,I understand not wanting more gun laws, especially federal. But the guys in Wisconsin right now would agree that there can be good gun laws, we can say the same since July 1st, or even a couple of years ago when the Park Carry law got shoe horned onto the credit reform law. All examples of us getting our rights back with good laws. We have momentum right now, it's not time to cower, it's time to uses our 1st Amendment rights to get our 2nds' back.
 

2A_Tom

Crotchety old member!
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Sep 27, 2010
23,745
113
NWI
Dan Coates 202-224-5623
Dick Lugar 202-224-4814

Sir, Please support or co sponsor S.845

Calling makes a difference.
 

furbymac

Expert
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Apr 7, 2009
1,079
36
noblesville
H.R. 822 is another national reciprocity bill that has been in committee since feb 28th. I am not sure if this bill is still alive or not but at last check it had 241 co-sponsors. It was introduced my rep. cliff sterns a republican from florida.
 

dross

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 27, 2009
8,692
48
Monument, CO
Someone help me with the principle on this. It seems to me we're conceding federal jurisdiction over firearms if we have this. This also seems to trample on our rights to have our own laws in each state.

How would you reconcile all the different requirements in each state?

On the surface, this seems unnecessary and dangerous. We're already winning this battle state by state. We win something every year on this. If the feds get it, what would keep them from tightening the restrictions later and forcing all the states to comply or lose highway funds or something like that?

I don't think we want this, and I'm not sure it's Constitutional.
 

MattCFII

Marksman
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Jul 12, 2008
638
18
Danville
Dan Coates 202-224-5623
Dick Lugar 202-224-4814

Sir, Please support or co sponsor [STRIKE]S.845[/STRIKE]

Calling makes a difference.

Awesome, BUT as far as I can tell it doesn't have a number yet since it isn't introduced or just was. This term, S. 845 is the "Tax Return Due Date Simplification and Modernization Act of 2011." May be a good thing but not what we are talking about now.

Someone help me with the principle on this. It seems to me we're conceding federal jurisdiction over firearms if we have this. This also seems to trample on our rights to have our own laws in each state.

How would you reconcile all the different requirements in each state?

On the surface, this seems unnecessary and dangerous. We're already winning this battle state by state. We win something every year on this. If the feds get it, what would keep them from tightening the restrictions later and forcing all the states to comply or lose highway funds or something like that?

I don't think we want this, and I'm not sure it's Constitutional.
You don't reconcile them. Driver's licenses don't, you just say one is good in all even if it is easier to get in another state. Problem then might be that non-resident permits go away but any of us in shall issue states wouldn't need non-resident.

We win on most state levels with CCW but you are never going to get CA, MA, NJ, ect. to recognize other permits without something federal (be it legistlative or judicial). All the bill should say and has in the past that if a LTCH/permit is issued in one state it is good in all PERIOD. I wouldn't support any other monkeying around. Thune doesn't. Now yes we would have to fight nasty amendments, but as written it is simple.

As Rookie says, it's the 2nd Amendment, I'm a big states rights guy until it comes to the Constitution, it has to be the supreme law of the land otherwise the United part is pointless.

Original Thune amendment text:
‘‘§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
‘‘Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:
‘‘(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or
permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

‘‘(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal
law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.’
 
Last edited:

dross

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 27, 2009
8,692
48
Monument, CO
Why wouldn't it be constitutional? Shall not be infringed as long as you're in your home state?

If you're making the argument that the 2nd Amendment allows no laws to be made in any state concerning guns, then it would be Constitutional. That position puts you in a pretty small group of people, however.

If you are that absolutist on the Constitution, then consistency would require you to acknowledge that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States originally, but was incorporated later by the 14th Amendment, I believe. Since then the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does apply to the States, but if you accept that ruling as Constitutional, you undermine your argument by conceding that the Supreme Court has the power under judicial review to interpret the Constitution. If you go that route, you're caught in the net that under the same ruling where they agree it applied to the states, they also allowed for regulation.

I don't see how you can hold your particular position and maintain any kind of consistency.
 

Products discussed on INGO

Site Supporter

INGO Supporter

Forum statistics

Threads
489,066
Messages
8,801,900
Members
47,877
Latest member
Gomer
Top Bottom