Forums

Forum Menu
Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics

National Right to Carry Law

NomadacNomadac Posts: 902 Senior Member
in Second Amendment/Politics #1
Howard Stern Backs Trump’s Plan for National Right-to-Carry Law.
http://http://bearingarms.com/ba-staff/2016/11/21/howard-stern-backs-trumps-plan-for-national-right-to-carry-law/?utm_source=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

With Trump President this could be a very good chance to get the National Right-to- Carry Law passed in a Republican Congress. Maybe this will sway some that were not supporters of Trump.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Replies

  • RugerFanRugerFan Posts: 2,879 Senior Member
    #2
    I highly doubt this will pass. If it does, it will be voted out by the next democratic held Congress and/or president
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    #3
    RugerFan wrote: »
    I highly doubt this will pass. If it does, it will be voted out by the next democratic held Congress and/or president

    If it passes, it will never (OK, almost never) get overturned. Democrats do not mess with gun laws on a national level.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    #4
    I kinda see making one State follow the laws of another as a violation of States Rights. It sounds crazy but I do believe very deeply in States Rights ...
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bisleybisley Posts: 10,815 Senior Member
    #5
    I need to know a lot more about this before I have an opinion. The unexpected consequences always suck.

    Generally speaking, if the NRA thinks it's OK, I usually do, too, but then again...they had Harry Reid rated 'B' a few years ago and had to back up on endorsing him after mucho negative feedback from members (including me).
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    #6
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    It's not about following the laws of another. It's a nationwide reciprocal agreement and a standardization of the basic principles, much like marriage and driving licenses. You STILL have to follow the individual laws of the state you find yourself in, just as you do today, such as no carrying in bars or while intoxicated etc.

    With the vast spread of state laws and requirements (from Constitutional Carry States to draconian states where you have to be an insider) there would likely be some toes stepped on in the more free states. In the reciprocity agreements states getbin pissing matches over we only recognize those who have this training, this type background check, if you don't recognize ours we won't yours, etc. To me I like what NC did when they said screw it ... if you have one we recognize it because of our Republican State Legislature was a super majority pressure up and down the ladder on the Dems who did hold office.

    I just am leery of the Feds telling states what to do on so many levels, especially when it comes to state laws. Now if the Feds pull a National Constitutional Carry bill where the leaders (SCOTUS and so on) say it is using the 2A as its foundation ... heck yeah!

    The Fedsmaking any laws regarding what states must do just makes me think about what other State Rights they can step on.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • tennmiketennmike Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    #7
    I'd go with national concealed, open, constitutional carry. HOWEVER, the Feds should have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in the training, or lack thereof, of any state, or make a national training standard and then tack a TAX to it in the form of a permit. They could screw up a one man parade, and frequently do so on a highly regular basis.
      “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TeachTeach Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    #8
    The feds could screw up a free meal by asking for change!
    Jerry
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BigslugBigslug Posts: 9,875 Senior Member
    #9
    NCFUBAR wrote: »
    I kinda see making one State follow the laws of another as a violation of States Rights. It sounds crazy but I do believe very deeply in States Rights ...

    Conversely, the states should be following the B.O.R. That whole infringey thing. . .
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • tennmiketennmike Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    #10
    Here's a novel idea. Interpret the 2nd Amendment ECACTLY AS WRITTEN with the writings of the framers of the Constitution regarding the right to keep and bear arms as the ONLY guide to its interpretation. There is no lack of writings by them that explained EXACTLY what they meant. Any other interpretation is bogus. Any state that does not embrace that original intent will be seen as lower than a scalawag carpetbagger. :tooth:

    Do away with the BATFEIEIO and all those 'rules', laws, and constraints on the 2nd from the NFA, GCA '68, and the Firearms Owners Protection Act from the '80s. Everything is on the table and can be bought for cash on the barrelhead, except nuclear weapons. Ain't nobody got any use for those. Want a tank or a 105 howitzer? Go for it! Like the framers meant it to be.
      “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    #11
    I just don't think a national "reciprocity" thing will go in places like NYC where they don't even recognize the FOPA. then throw in CA (especially SF and LA) and others like MD, IL, NJ, etc.

    The various laws and requirements just screw up things with the "well my states requires this and you can do that" legalize that screws up the common person. Heck, CA is about to have a huge jump in "criminals" when their Prop 63 laws take affect in July.

    There are so many free states from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming who have gone Constitutional Carry that get hosed if they travel.

    I really want the SCOTUS to be sat with a couple Constitutionalists, the court shifted to the rights of the people and draconian laws challenged ... be it the 2nd Amendment or Health Care or Education.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gene LGene L Posts: 12,817 Senior Member
    #12
    NCFUBAR wrote: »
    I kinda see making one State follow the laws of another as a violation of States Rights. It sounds crazy but I do believe very deeply in States Rights ...

    I agree. It would take a Constitutional Amendment, and that ain't gonna happen. I believe in States Rights as well.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • john9001john9001 Posts: 668 Senior Member
    #13
    NCFUBAR wrote: »
    I kinda see making one State follow the laws of another as a violation of States Rights. It sounds crazy but I do believe very deeply in States Rights ...

    How many states honor you driver's license.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • john9001john9001 Posts: 668 Senior Member
    #14
    Gene L wrote: »
    I agree. It would take a Constitutional Amendment, and that ain't gonna happen. I believe in States Rights as well.

    It is already in the Constitution, it is called the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Posts: 2,614 Senior Member
    #15
    I definitely am willing for this to happen. I see it as the next big victory for 2a rights.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    #16
    While not quite the same, this article gives a little thought on the National Firearms Act of 1934 and what could happen if the Kansas case would be challenged to the SCOTUS ...

    http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/22/this-lawsuit-could-shatter-all-federal-gun-laws/
    The federal trial of a Kansas man for manufacturing and selling firearms and silencers without a federal license could very well turn out to be the pivotal case that not only challenges the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934, but also every federal firearms law ever passed in a battle that will determine whether it is the states or the federal government that has the constitutional right to pass gun laws.

    Personally I don't see all things being struck down but if Trump does get a good Justice or two on the court who knows what we could see.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • snake284snake284 Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    #17
    NCFUBAR wrote: »
    I just don't think a national "reciprocity" thing will go in places like NYC where they don't even recognize the FOPA. then throw in CA (especially SF and LA) and others like MD, IL, NJ, etc.

    The various laws and requirements just screw up things with the "well my states requires this and you can do that" legalize that screws up the common person. Heck, CA is about to have a huge jump in "criminals" when their Prop 63 laws take affect in July.

    There are so many free states from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming who have gone Constitutional Carry that get hosed if they travel.

    I really want the SCOTUS to be sat with a couple Constitutionalists, the court shifted to the rights of the people and draconian laws challenged ... be it the 2nd Amendment or Health Care or Education.

    I want the whole court set with Constitutionalists. Not just two.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pjames777pjames777 Posts: 1,421 Senior Member
    #18
    State Rights vanished when Senators became elected by the people and not by the States' legislature.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

MORE YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Sign Me Up
Advertisement