State News & Gun News > NRA & National Gun News

Senators Thune and Vitter Introduce Reciprocity Bill

<< < (6/6)

Dunmore:
I'm a little confused by everyone's responses to this bill.

If you are for the Senate bill, this means that you are in favor of the Federal government over-riding each state's own laws. This is akin to a 2nd amendment argument. This is big government.

If you are against the Senate bill, this means that you recognize the right of each state and community to set their own standards. This is a 10th Amendment, State's rights, argument

Here's an example: Delaware does not prohibit the carrying and use of Tasers. Neither do Kent or Sussex county. However, Wilmington and NCC prohibit Tasers, even for people with concealed carry licenses. Do you think they have the right to do this? If you do, then you should be against the Senate  bill. If you think that local standards should not be more restrictive than state, or Federal, ones, than you are for Big Government.

extegral:
@dunmore - i'm all for state's rights up and to the point they restrict cross-border activities.  i think you could make a pretty good argument that the full faith and credit clause of the constitution (art iv, sect 1) requires some kind of reciprocity.  and no, i'm not getting into the commerce clause!

SturmRugerSR9:
Even though these bills died in the Judicial Committee (Democrat majority), I feel they will be brought back up. It seems there is some confusion. These bills only caused a reciprical agreement between all states, it did not alter or change each individual states laws for their C/C requirements. So DE would be the same, WI would be the same, PA would be the same. VA would be the same.  It would be up to the individual to be aware of the states laws as you go to or through them. There is also a federal law in effect now for transporting a gun across borders going to another state, like if you were going to a shooting match in another state, and carrying a gun.
This is my take on it.

formerly known as frank:
Sturm, you are correct, Dunmore is truly confused, these bills will not effect states rights.

CorBon:
Regarding Ol' Tommy Carper and anyone citing their own (alleged) firearms as proof of 2nd Amendment support, please remember that "support" is somewhat subjective in nature.  First, even if the speaker does like/have firearms, they may be 17th on his/her list of concerns, where they are much higher on your list.  That means the other person may take pro-2A steps or actions, as long as those actions don't interfere with his/her other higher priorities.  

Second, many moons ago, the NRA was divided between hunters and everyone else.  The hunters believed that the government wasn't out to take hunting rifles, basically because many of the politicians were stating "we're not out to take your hunting rifles."  A lot of things took place, though:  most anti-gunners dropped the "militia argument," which then placed all firearms in the figurative crosshairs; many politicians openly stated that that they wanted all guns banned; hunting rifles started looking more like the "bad" guns; a lot of folks realized that the "bad" guns and the hunting rifles worked the same way; hunters and hunting areas are seemingly declining; and more people got firearms exclusively for defense purposes.  And as much as that's the way things used to be, sometimes it looks like certain folks are still trying to segregate firearms by type.  So, it's possible that the speaker may have that old-school approach to firearms -- hunting rifles good, everything else bad.

Third, and most important and obvious, if it's a politician speaking -- he/she's probably lying.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page