Skip to comments.NRA seeks universal gun law at national meeting
Posted on 04/24/2014 6:56:00 PM PDT by dontreadthis
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) With concealed weapons now legal in all 50 states, the National Rifle Association's focus at this week's annual meeting is less about enacting additional state protections than on making sure the permits already issued still apply when the gun owners travel across the country.
"Right now it takes some legal research to find out where you are or are not legal depending on where you are," said Guy Relford, an attorney who has sued communities for violating an Indiana law that bars local gun regulation. "I don't think that's right."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Federal gun laws are seldom a good thing. If you’re responsible enough to carry you should be responsible enough to research and familiarize yourself with the laws.
This sounds more like a standardized reciprocal-rights initiative at the state level.
The Second Amendment is a Universal Gun Law, isn’t it?
I have to agree.
This thread is closed.
No more replies.
I respectfully disagree. I should be able to carry anywhere in this country I want to without having to memorize a labyrinth of regulations.
If you are licensed, you should be able to carry anywhere, anytime, in the open in a holster.
I understand where you are coming from, but I have been traveling down the eastern seaboard this past week, and there is no way I could just carry. It is too complicated.
But I do understand the problem with Federal legislation, but the federal legislation should say: If your state says you can carry, you can carry anywhere with no restrictions.
The problem is all the wheeling and dealing it would take to get it done.
Why should it be closed with no replies?
Make it a federal issue and Obama gets to make the laws, with his pen if he has to. After him, Hilary might just be the person making the rules about your carry rather than your local legislator.
I’d much rather fight this state by state and avoid those places without reciprocity.
In an ideal world, the viewpoint would be: it is your right to carry by default.
In the real world, you are sadly correct, I would have to agree.
oh, ok, go ahead...
Like gay marriage licensees are forced to be honored by lib judges.
Doesn't seem to be working very well.
Have you tried carrying a gun around NYC?
Try it and you will see what I mean.
I understand the point you make, and I agree.
But if we were a country guided by a constitution that states adhere to, then if you are a member of the union adhering to the Constitution, that should be the document that determines the right to own a firearm.
In reality, we can agree that since our Federal government doesn’t follow the Constitution, allowing them to set the rules without state interference at this time would not work.
But that doesn’t mean it is right. We should be forcing our Federal government to adhere to it, then it wouldn’t be an issue.
But we can agree, at this time, it is.
some laws are more universal than others
it’s the new way
Thanks Algore; the debate is over; yes?
Its called “The Second Amendment”.
I have to disagree with your position. The USA is 50 sovereign states. Those 50 states each have state constitutions and they do not control anything beyond their own states borders. That is the way the way the Founders planned it and I would love to see it returned to that plan.
Give it a few years and with some luck we may just find America will have Constitution Carry. No permits, fees or approvals needed.
While I generally go for states rights I think it be fun to give the libs a taste of their own medicine by debating this.
Like I said above, lib judges force states to recognize liberals states gay marriages, gay marriage licenses, without a universal marriage law calling for it.
They just make it up.
this NRA measure does not work to strengthen 2A.
It attempts to facilitate the right, but does so via Congress.
When has Congress ever facilitated anything
“We should be forcing our Federal government to adhere to it, then it wouldnt be an issue”
We need to quit electing democrats for a start.
That would be ideal.
Liberalism is a poison, from both Democrats and Republicans, you are correct.
How about just giving full faith and credit to a concealed carry permit holder nationwide?
National gun carry reciprocity is long overdue. The burden shouldn’t be on citizens exercising their right: the burden of making it clear with warnings, signs, etc. (”We deny your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms in our city/establishment, and you face civil and criminal penalties for exercising your right ...”) should be on the municipality, business, individual infringing on the right clearly set forth in the Bill of Rights
The point is to extend the Constitution’s “full faith & credit” clause to gun licensing: whatever permits you to own & carry in your state is recognized as valid in the state visited. This leads to oddities like any Vermont government-issued proof of residency constituting possession rights in DC (falling in the “not bloody likely” category of real-world sociopolitics).
Alas, it still misses the point of RKBA, and further entrenches the non-sequitur notion that any level of government may require permission to exercise a right.
Corrected: If you have not been otherwise adjudicated as warranting suspension of rights (felony, etc), then ...
I agree.. I don’t have to check with other states before I use my drivers license to drive through their state..
Why should carrying my weapon be any different?
“Federal gun laws are seldom a good thing. If youre responsible enough to carry you should be responsible enough to research and familiarize yourself with the laws.” -cripplecreek
It’s a state matter, not a federal matter. The nationalizing-socialist leftists would love to usurp that authority -— so please, do not let them.
Where in the Constitution does it say that we need to be licensed to bear arms? I am sick of this sort of pandering to the fascists who want to erode our rights.
The second amendment is the universal gun law
“Federal gun laws are seldom a good thing. If youre responsible enough to carry you should be responsible enough to research and familiarize yourself with the laws.”
I agree. Nothing but mischief can come of the feds getting involved in this. Let the states work it out.
I figure that if the full faith and credit clause can be used to force one state to accept another state’s wedding permit, then the same should be true for carry permits as well.
If the Full Faith and Credit clause means one state has to recognize another states “gay” marriages, then they have to recognize the CCW permits as well. Case closed.
It amazes me that the Interstate Commerce Clause can only be selectively enforced. Especially when (in this case) it is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, not like some “implied rights”.
I was just being sloppy. See ctdonath2 at post 31 below. That is a more accurate representation of my stance.
Be a little less hostile. We are on the same side here.
How about a novel approach? Why not just honor “shall not be infringed” at all levels?