Senators Thune and Vitter Introduce Reciprocity Bill

[SturmRugerSR9]

Tom Carper is a beligerant a-hole. I went to Washington DC one time to see him, along with a group, about some legislation. He acted as thought he was not interested in what we had to say and that we should listen and follow him. He has no regard for his citizens. He has an agenda that is Bad for Delaware, Bad for America, Bad for the 2nd Amendment, Bad for Firearms Owners Everywhere. The proble is that the left wingers in NCC love him and they out number the rest of the state. I predict he will stay in office in Delaware for a long time, sorry to say. People will not wake up.

[calee13]

@ Radnor.................LMFAO...........I think I like you !!

[Capnball]

I'm very surprised that Carper confessed to being a firearms owner and a supporter of the Constitution in writing! His left-leaning supporters won't like that very much. He even alludes to being in support of States rights. Oh my! His Senate buddies are not going to like that at all! Of course like any politician, the talking track is geared toward the audience. Many words that say little to nothing about the question asked. And, Like all of the rest of the power-mad narcissists in D.C.; whatever it takes to stay in office and keep the "sheeple" asleep while they plunder our pockets and wrap the chains of bloated government tyranny ever tighter. Sadly, I have to agree we are likely stuck with him until he gets too old to run for another term and then we will have the privilege of supporting him with tax dollars in lavish luxury for the balance of his life. 

[SturmRugerSR9]

And yet Senator Tom Carper has an F rating by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and an F- rating by the Gun Owners of America (GOA) on their record of voting on bills concerning the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. This is a poklitician that talks out of both sides of his mouth, depending on who'e listening. But, rest assured he always votes against NRA< GOA< and the rights of firearms owners like you and me.  Does he need to go........not only yes but, HELL YES!

[Dunmore]

I'm a strong 2nd Admendment man, but I'm opposed to the National Reciprocity act for one reason: Here in Delaware I know that everyone who is carrying concealed legally has received proper training, been fingerprinted, and had a background check. Not so in some other states. If all the state standards were the same, no problem with this legislation.

[SturmRugerSR9]

I understand your point Dunmore, but on another thread you said you went to Pa. and got a permit, that is a state with reciprical agreements with states that do not have the same rules as Delaware. The rules a state sets up is a matter of States Rights. I'd rather have the Federal Reciprocity Bill passed that have to go to several different states to accomplish the same thing. At least with the Federal bill the states have the rights to set their own rules and control who carries and who can't , without infringing on anothers states rights. To my way of thinking it would be like making you take a drivers licsense training and test from another state to be able to drive there. Just my opinion, let's see what do others think?  Response encouraged.

[Knotacare]

If the States & Feds stayed out of this like it was intended you wouldn't need any law passed. We have become a country with way to many laws & I believe most are passed to generate income to support to many state & fed employees. When you have people like Carper in office who talk out of both sides of there mouth & do what ever they want it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. 

[SturmRugerSR9]

A pat on the back and a tip of the hat to Notacare.

[Capnball]

Knotacare - you are very correct - revenue generation is but one of the major the reasons behind many modern laws, but that is only a part of it. What our so-called "leaders" truly want more than anything else, is absolute and total, cradle-to-grave control of every thought, deed or transaction we make. In their view of the world, you and I are too ignorant to make decisions for ourselves or our families without their "benevolent-interference". They've designed a system whereby we have no choice but to come to them and beg for permission and pay whatever fee they demand for nearly everything, and with each passing generation this situation grows steadily worse. Thankfully, our founding fathers recognized that this would likely happen, and gave us remedies within the Constitution to deal with it, if we could only get a majority of our fellow citizens to think more like an American Individual and less like a European subject.

[SturmRugerSR9]

I just checked the US Senate Judiciary Committee schedule/calander for S2188 Vitter/Thune Bill. There is no action scheduled for it in April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December of 2012. I didn't see anything for HR822 either. More than likely they will both die in Committee. Looks like we've been screwed yet again by the Democrats controlling the US Senate.

[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.