Trump supports national CCW reciprocity.

Like repealing OdumbaCare and such, he can’t do that as an EO. It would have to make it past the House and Senate. As to the Senate maybe but the Dim controlled House ... NEVER would they allow it so he’s safe anyway he looks at it.
 
Last edited:
Like he said "IF" it reaches his desk. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
^

Is that meme-girl?

image_400x400.jpg
 
If John McCain voted with the Senate to kill Obama-Crap-Care, it would be history, instead he voted to keep it and his wife says she is voting for Biden.
 
Me. said:
Some states have no restrictions on carry. Others have many restrictions.

States have many differing laws on the legal use of force.

Like it or not, some places have elected to not allow carry. Should a person who can legally carry in Wyoming be able to carry in NY, while people who have a pistol permit in New York State cannot?
Click to expand...
I think that’s one big piece of the issue, and another part of the conundrum is “how do you balance states’ rights with individual rights?”. These states that technically or effectively ban CCW should not be able to do so. They should have the right to create their own laws around how/where you carry, but not IF you can carry.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
I think that’s one big piece of the issue, and another part of the conundrum is “how do you balance states’ rights with individual rights?”. These states that technically or effectively ban CCW should not be able to do so. They should have the right to create their own laws around how/where you carry, but not IF you can carry.
Click to expand...

States cannot ban rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But if it isn’t spelled out in that document then they can have at it. So for example, abortion should be an issue for the States. The Supreme Court should never have been involved. Same with drug laws. So free crack and coat hangers in CA. Not so much in Utah.
 
CZfool68 said:
States cannot ban rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But if it isn’t spelled out in that document then they can have at it. So for example, abortion should be an issue for the States. The Supreme Court should never have been involved. Same with drug laws. So free crack and coat hangers in CA. Not so much in Utah.
Click to expand...
And that’s why they don’t do so “specifically”, but good luck getting a permit in NJ, MD, DE, CT, HI, etc.
 
Me. said:
Some states have no restrictions on carry. Others have many restrictions.

States have many differing laws on the legal use of force.

Like it or not, some places have elected to not allow carry. Should a person who can legally carry in Wyoming be able to carry in NY, while people who have a pistol permit in New York State cannot?
Click to expand...
Then drivers licenses should not have reciprocity either as some states have greater restrictions on them
 
Me. said:
Should a person who can legally carry in Wyoming be able to carry in NY, while people who have a pistol permit in New York State cannot?
Click to expand...

The answer is YES. And when the folks in NY see how their state has voided their right to carry perhaps they will do something about it.

Or perhaps they will move to Wyoming.

Either way seems like a win to me.
 
Last edited:
vaskeet said:
Then drivers licenses should not have reciprocity either as some states have greater restrictions on them
Click to expand...
What different restrictions are there? Genuine question, I assumed it was all the same (16 years of age)

Its a nice gesture, to say what he said. But 'if'
He could say a lot of things 'if' when he knows it wont get to him
It's a nice gesture and might pick up a few votes, but likely not at this point (I doubt any 'fence sitters' would be swayed by this 'if')
 
HMP said:
What different restrictions are there? Genuine question, I assumed it was all the same (16 years of age)

')
Click to expand...


SC restricted license at 15 1/2 NC is 16 after having a permit for a full year Arkansas drivers under 18 cant drive beteen 11 pm and 4 am and cant have more than 1 non family member in the car Some states like New York also require new adult drivers to attend some form of driver education before applying for a license
 
Me. said:
Some states have no restrictions on carry. Others have many restrictions.

States have many differing laws on the legal use of force.

Like it or not, some places have elected to not allow carry. Should a person who can legally carry in Wyoming be able to carry in NY, while people who have a pistol permit in New York State cannot?
Click to expand...

the state's right argument is utter bull crap
the friggin bill of rights says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which means neither the fed nor "the state" has any right to regulate OUR rights that are presupposed as unalienable and endowed by our creator.

Quit fudding around and get with the program. all gun laws are unconstitutional.
 
I'll start by saying gun carry restrictions are unconstitutional.

That said, my concern with the federal government applying law to suggest we can carry nationwide on a local license is that then means as soon as the parties flip in government they also have the ability to restrict carry nationwide. Keeping this a question between the states makes it far more difficult for them to turn every state into New York or California.
 
Timfoilhat said:
I'll start by saying gun carry restrictions are unconstitutional.

That said, my concern with the federal government applying law to suggest we can carry nationwide on a local license is that then means as soon as the parties flip in government they also have the ability to restrict carry nationwide. Keeping this a question between the states makes it far more difficult for them to turn every state into New York or California.
Click to expand...
I see your point and I don't really want to argue with it because it's a good point...
but even having this discussion while under the protection of "...shall not be infringed" means we've already compromised too much.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
I see your point and I don't really want to argue with it because it's a good point...
but even having this discussion while under the protection of "...shall not be infringed" means we've already compromised too much.
Click to expand...
Yep. Truth.

When it comes to federal laws and guns the actions we should be focused on is repeal of that compromise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom