House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[Sallow]

If this law passes, NYC and State officials will have no choice but to recognize All States Gun Permits. Federal Supremacy and all.

As a former Truck Driver I can tell you people in that Industry want this law. Currently no CDL carrying Driver can carry a weapon in their Truck, Simply because some states will not recognize their Permits while others will. Believe me, as a truck driver, a gun for Protection, Is a very good idea.

Even though I agree with the bill I don't think the feds have any right telling another state how to gov. itself

Unlike with Marriage, the other comparable issue. The Constitution is pretty clear on our right to bear arms, and the Federal Governments obligation to protect that right.

It's not all that clear. In fact..it's one of the things that have been perverted by conservatives to the tune of 30k - 40K dead Americans, yearly.

 

[Charles_Main]

Even though I agree with the bill I don't think the feds have any right telling another state how to gov. itself

Unlike with Marriage, the other comparable issue. The Constitution is pretty clear on our right to bear arms, and the Federal Governments obligation to protect that right.

It's not all that clear. In fact..it's one of the things that have been perverted by conservatives to the tune of 30k - 40K dead Americans, yearly.

That's an Opinion the Courts do not back up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unlike with Marriage, the other comparable issue. The Constitution is pretty clear on our right to bear arms, and the Federal Governments obligation to protect that right.

Even if it violates a ‘state’s right’? Again, you rightists might want to have a quick meeting to get your story straight before someone says something really damaging to the ‘cause.’

Otherwise, yes – the states are compelled to abide by Federal law. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

 

[Sallow]

Yet no jobs bill from the House.Really important issue during a great recession.

Why do you lie so much? The house has passed no less than 12 Bills aimed at creating jobs in one way or another. All of which have been tabled by the Senate.

Do try and pay attention and stop just parroting Liberal Lies.

No they didn't.

The House of Representatives passed bills geared to cut taxes on the wealthy and cut regulations on the stock market. That..and they tried passing fruit loop amendment to the constitution. Everything else was naming stuff, taxing abortion, making abortion harder to get and repealing the Health Care package.

Nothing about job creation.

 

[Sallow]

Unlike with Marriage, the other comparable issue. The Constitution is pretty clear on our right to bear arms, and the Federal Governments obligation to protect that right.

It's not all that clear. In fact..it's one of the things that have been perverted by conservatives to the tune of 30k - 40K dead Americans, yearly.

That's an Opinion the Courts do not back up.

Thanks to the NRA and the gun lobby.

Money trumps common sense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet no jobs bill from the House.Really important issue during a great recession.

Although an advocate of the Second Amendment, I must admit this is a good point. Pity it’s motivated by partisan interests.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If this law passes, NYC and State officials will have no choice but to recognize All States Gun Permits. Federal Supremacy and all.

As a former Truck Driver I can tell you people in that Industry want this law. Currently no CDL carrying Driver can carry a weapon in their Truck, Simply because some states will not recognize their Permits while others will. Believe me, as a truck driver, a gun for Protection, Is a very good idea.

Even though I agree with the bill I don't think the feds have any right telling another state how to gov. itself

Unlike with Marriage, the other comparable issue. The Constitution is pretty clear on our right to bear arms, and the Federal Governments obligation to protect that right.

I AM PRETTY FIRM ON THIS ISSUE A STATE SHOULD BE LEFT TO IT'S OWN DIVICES TO GOVERN ITSELF. As I said I agree with what they are tryng to do but carrying agreements should be managed with each individual states. Unless the Feds create a set standard that must be met, then we have a whole new can of worms to play with.

OH and forgive the caps lock not yelling

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's not all that clear. In fact..it's one of the things that have been perverted by conservatives to the tune of 30k - 40K dead Americans, yearly.

That's an Opinion the Courts do not back up.

Thanks to the NRA and the gun lobby.

Money trumps common sense.

I'll ask again maybe you'll answer this time

Common sense is someone taking a firearms class to be able to carry conceal. Now thats common sense.

 

[J.E.D]

It's about time

Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines.

Although many states have entered into voluntary agreements, there is no nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly. A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Heath Shuler, D-N.C., aims to change that.


Read more: House Weighs Bill To Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines | Fox News

One I will have to remember come election time

So much for the GOP loving states rights. Oh wait...they gave up that ideal long ago.

 

[J.E.D]

Don't come to New York.

You'll spend a year or two in Jail.

If this law passes, NYC and State officials will have no choice but to recognize All States Gun Permits. Federal Supremacy and all.

As a former Truck Driver I can tell you people in that Industry want this law. Currently no CDL carrying Driver can carry a weapon in their Truck, Simply because some states will not recognize their Permits while others will. Believe me, as a truck driver, a gun for Protection, Is a very good idea.

Even though I agree with the bill I don't think the feds have any right telling another state how to gov. itself

Then why do you support the bill?

 

[Charles_Main]

Unlike with Marriage, the other comparable issue. The Constitution is pretty clear on our right to bear arms, and the Federal Governments obligation to protect that right.

Even if it violates a ‘state’s right’? Again, you rightists might want to have a quick meeting to get your story straight before someone says something really damaging to the ‘cause.’

Otherwise, yes – the states are compelled to abide by Federal law. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

You seem to not understand states rights. States rights are limited to those powers not specifically given to the Fed. The 2nd Amendment clearly gives the Fed and not the states the task for Guaranteeing our Right to bear arms.

 

[Sallow]

That's an Opinion the Courts do not back up.

Thanks to the NRA and the gun lobby.

Money trumps common sense.

I'll ask again maybe you'll answer this time

Common sense is someone taking a firearms class to be able to carry conceal. Now thats common sense.

No it ain't.

Common sense is allowing people to have a gun for home defense..and only carrying under very restrictive circumstances. And that should never be concealed carry.

Common sense would be having rigid tracking systems for both guns and bullets. Such that you can tell where each and every bullet was bought and who owns the gun. That way gun owners would be completely responsible for their guns and bullets.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thanks to the NRA and the gun lobby.

Money trumps common sense.

I'll ask again maybe you'll answer this time

Common sense is someone taking a firearms class to be able to carry conceal. Now thats common sense.

No it ain't.

Common sense is allowing people to have a gun for home defense..and only carrying under very restrictive circumstances. And that should never be concealed carry.

Common sense would be having rigid tracking systems for both guns and bullets. Such that you can tell where each and every bullet was bought and who owns the gun. That way gun owners would be completely responsible for their guns and bullets.

maybe police officers should only have their guns at home and go on the job unarmed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unlike with Marriage, the other comparable issue. The Constitution is pretty clear on our right to bear arms, and the Federal Governments obligation to protect that right.

Even if it violates a ‘state’s right’? Again, you rightists might want to have a quick meeting to get your story straight before someone says something really damaging to the ‘cause.’

Otherwise, yes – the states are compelled to abide by Federal law. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

You seem to not understand states rights. States rights are limited to those powers not specifically given to the Fed. The 2nd Amendment clearly gives the Fed and not the states the task for Guaranteeing our Right to bear arms.

Which that is true

 

[martybegan]

I'll ask again maybe you'll answer this time

Common sense is someone taking a firearms class to be able to carry conceal. Now thats common sense.

No it ain't.

Common sense is allowing people to have a gun for home defense..and only carrying under very restrictive circumstances. And that should never be concealed carry.

Common sense would be having rigid tracking systems for both guns and bullets. Such that you can tell where each and every bullet was bought and who owns the gun. That way gun owners would be completely responsible for their guns and bullets.

maybe police officers should only have their guns at home and go on the job unarmed.

Actually the opposite should be true. In any juristiction that prohibits concealed carry, or makes the rules so onerous that there is a de facto ban, police officers should be forced to leave thier weapons at the precinct, and leave thier safety to the on duty officers, the same way everyone else does.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The Founding Fathers wanted every man to be able to have a gun, to be used for providing for his family and for defending his home and liberties. I agree. And one of the most common guns of the time was the Long Rifle.

So in this case, I agree. There should be no permits or limits on a man's right to own a Long Rifle. This should cross state boundaries.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Founding Fathers wanted every man to be able to have a gun, to be used for providing for his family and for defending his home and liberties. I agree. And one of the most common guns of the time was the Long Rifle.

So in this case, I agree. There should be no permits or limits on a man's right to own a Long Rifle. This should cross state boundaries.

There are two ways I answer a post like this

Any laws not wrote on parchment with a quill should be made vold because they didn't have a pen or computer back at the signing of the Constitution

Next the only firearms protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

 

[Sallow]

I'll ask again maybe you'll answer this time

Common sense is someone taking a firearms class to be able to carry conceal. Now thats common sense.

No it ain't.

Common sense is allowing people to have a gun for home defense..and only carrying under very restrictive circumstances. And that should never be concealed carry.

Common sense would be having rigid tracking systems for both guns and bullets. Such that you can tell where each and every bullet was bought and who owns the gun. That way gun owners would be completely responsible for their guns and bullets.

maybe police officers should only have their guns at home and go on the job unarmed.

Where do you come by that?

 

[Sallow]

The Founding Fathers wanted every man to be able to have a gun, to be used for providing for his family and for defending his home and liberties. I agree. And one of the most common guns of the time was the Long Rifle.

So in this case, I agree. There should be no permits or limits on a man's right to own a Long Rifle. This should cross state boundaries.

There are two ways I answer a post like this

Any laws not wrote on parchment with a quill should be made vold because they didn't have a pen or computer back at the signing of the Constitution

Next the only firearms protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

I love posts like these. Because it basically backs up my reading of the second amendment. That being..that gun ownership is mapped with military service.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Founding Fathers wanted every man to be able to have a gun, to be used for providing for his family and for defending his home and liberties. I agree. And one of the most common guns of the time was the Long Rifle.

So in this case, I agree. There should be no permits or limits on a man's right to own a Long Rifle. This should cross state boundaries.

There are two ways I answer a post like this

Any laws not wrote on parchment with a quill should be made vold because they didn't have a pen or computer back at the signing of the Constitution

Next the only firearms protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

I love posts like these. Because it basically backs up my reading of the second amendment. That being..that gun ownership is mapped with military service.

But two key things your missing.
Weapons to be owned and maitained by those who carried them
1. "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Only weapons protected by the second amendment are military greade weapons
2."the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'

Add them together
Weapon ownership by the one who carries them and they must be military grade weapons of the kind in common use at the time. which also means upgrades to keep up with the times