House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines Read more: http://www

[Cancel 2018. 3]

House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

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.

Supporters say the measure would not create a federal licensing system, but would require that all states recognize lawfully issued permits -- regardless of where they were issued. Gun rights advocacy groups say it's the only way to make sure that lawful gun owners' Second Amendment rights are guaranteed when they travel away from their home states.

But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems. Foes also said that the law could allow violent offenders to hold on to their weapons.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rmits-valid-across-state-lines/#ixzz1XwUF6fmD

i don't see how this violate state's rights. unless the argument is that scotus hasn't technically ruled the second applies to states in this regard.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

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.

Supporters say the measure would not create a federal licensing system, but would require that all states recognize lawfully issued permits -- regardless of where they were issued. Gun rights advocacy groups say it's the only way to make sure that lawful gun owners' Second Amendment rights are guaranteed when they travel away from their home states.

But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems. Foes also said that the law could allow violent offenders to hold on to their weapons.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rmits-valid-across-state-lines/#ixzz1XwUF6fmD

i don't see how this violate state's rights. unless the argument is that scotus hasn't technically ruled the second applies to states in this regard.

They haven't ruled on the constitutionality of carrying yet. A case is being brought to them and will hopefully be decided in the next two years. Technically precedent can be established that since Congress can legislate on other gun matters, they can on this one via their (erroneous) reading of the commerce clause. So its a legal qandry for gun control advocates.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

They haven't ruled on the constitutionality of carrying yet. A case is being brought to them and will hopefully be decided in the next two years. Technically precedent can be established that since Congress can legislate on other gun matters, they can on this one via their (erroneous) reading of the commerce clause. So its a legal qandry for gun control advocates.

since it falls under the US constitution, if the legislature passes a gun law, doesn't the constitution trump or supercede state law?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Any law restricting the possession of any weapon by any US citizen is unconstitutional.

why do you have troll every thread?

 

[leaningright]

This is definitely a conundrum for me. On the one hand it violates the state's rights issue but on the other hand it would make things so much more convenient.

This summer my family and I went to the Grand Canyon, Hoover Dam, and spent one night in Las Vegas. We then drove back to Oklahoma across Utah (awesome scenery there) and Colorado and finally through Kansas (not much to see there). The only place I couldn't legally carry was the one place I felt the most need to have protection for my family....Vegas.....or really anywhere in Nevada, but the visit to the dam wasn't nearly as stressful as the one night in Vegas.

So I can definitely see how convenient this would make things for travelers but also, at least to me, it violates a state's right to make laws to govern thier borders. To me, it would be like the Federal Govt. making a blanket law for all that would override an Arizona Immigration law. I wouldn't like that either so I don't feel I could be for the one and against the other.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

This is definitely a conundrum for me. On the one hand it violates the state's rights issue but on the other hand it would make things so much more convenient.

This summer my family and I went to the Grand Canyon, Hoover Dam, and spent one night in Las Vegas. We then drove back to Oklahoma across Utah (awesome scenery there) and Colorado and finally through Kansas (not much to see there). The only place I couldn't legally carry was the one place I felt the most need to have protection for my family....Vegas.....or really anywhere in Nevada, but the visit to the dam wasn't nearly as stressful as the one night in Vegas.

So I can definitely see how convenient this would make things for travelers but also, at least to me, it violates a state's right to make laws to govern thier borders. To me, it would be like the Federal Govt. making a blanket law for all that would override an Arizona Immigration law. I wouldn't like that either so I don't feel I could be for the one and against the other.

if it is a constitutional issue, doesn't that supercede state's rights? the states cannot make a law that conflicts with federal constitutional law.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

i've still yet to see any intellectually honest judge do the hula hooping necessary to separate keep from bear in the 2nd Amendment as well as find a definition for 'shall not be infringed' that allows for banning possession of certain firearms.

Also, Murdock v. commonwealth of PA does away with the constitutionality of carry permits.

 

[leaningright]

if it is a constitutional issue, doesn't that supercede state's rights? the states cannot make a law that conflicts with federal constitutional law.

True, but isn't that the direction the anit-immigration crowd are taking with places like Arizona and Virginia. It boils down to who has their guy(s) in the SC. It just bothers me that we take things to the SC to try to override the wishes of the state. Like I say, it is a conundrum for me.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

True, but isn't that the direction the anit-immigration crowd are taking with places like Arizona and Virginia. It boils down to who has their guy(s) in the SC. It just bothers me that we take things to the SC to try to override the wishes of the state. Like I say, it is a conundrum for me.

not to my knowledge. if their laws do not conflict with federal law, then they can create their own laws. also, state law cannot obstruct federal law. i've cited cases to support this. the supremacy clause is a great place to start researching the issue.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

since it falls under the US constitution, if the legislature passes a gun law, doesn't the constitution trump or supercede state law?

Well according to the article you have both yes and no. If states allow carry (IL and WI are the only ones that flat out do not allow it) then they have to recognize permits from out of state. To be honest it sounds a lot like having a drivers license. Those are all recognized across state lines, along with other such permits. I don't think there is a constitutional issue here at all.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Well according to the article you have both yes and no. If states allow carry (IL and WI are the only ones that flat out do not allow it) then they have to recognize permits from out of state. To be honest it sounds a lot like having a drivers license. Those are all recognized across state lines, along with other such permits. I don't think there is a constitutional issue here at all.

i think of it more along the lines of allowing a license to drive a certain vehicle. some states may require extra certification or not allow a certain vehicle on the road. if this violates the commerce clause, then federal supremacy is invoked and i believe that this has already happened and that is why licenses are accepted nationwide.

regarding your thoughts, that is a constitutional issue as well. whether the federal government can force states to recognize other state's permits.

 

[Mr. T]

If they really wanted to pass a worthwhile law they would allow us to buy fully automatic weapons without having to purchase the Type-07 license. (Special Occupational Tax Stamp)

 

[Mr. T]

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

If they really wanted to pass a worthwhile law they would allow us to buy fully automatic weapons without having to purchase the Type-07 license. (Special Occupational Tax Stamp)

You only need a license for post 86 dealer samples.

 

[Good Luck]

On the one hand it violates the state's rights issue.....

Last I looked, states do not have the authority to violate our Constitutional rights. This is not a states rights issue, and has not been since the 14th Amendment was ratified. It is a load of bovine cookies that SCOTUS has to make that declaration. But then, people seem to be all too willing these days to allow government to decide which rights we get to keep, as if those rights came from government in the first place. That isn't how I learned the way our government was founded.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Last I looked, states do not have the authority to violate our Constitutional rights. This is not a states rights issue, and has not been since the 14th Amendment was ratified. It is a load of bovine cookies that SCOTUS has to make that declaration. But then, people seem to be all too willing these days to allow government to decide which rights we get to keep, as if those rights came from government in the first place. That isn't how I learned the way our government was founded.

lol...bovine cookies, the new meadowmuffins

 

[Mr. T]

You only need a license for post 86 dealer samples.

A dealer can acquire a "Post-'86 machine gun" (AKA dealer sample) directly from the manufacturer on an approved Form 2 with a law enforcement letter (the demo letter). The problem is that some manufacturers are restrictive as to who they will supply guns to. HK will not transfer a dealer sample to anyone but an authorized HK law enforcement distributor. Glock (in the case of the G18) does not sell dealer samples at all. If a police department has Post-'86 machine guns in their inventory, the can sell those as dealer samples to licensed dealers with the demo letter on an approved Form 5. This is where the Glock 18 dealer samples come from.

A dealer is not able to keep an inventory of Post-'86 machine guns, only the original manufacturer can. The dealer is allowed one example of a particular model as a sample. If he gets an order from an agency for a quantity of guns, those guns will ship directly from the manufacturer to the agency, the dealer will never see the guns.

ATF has started to allow some dealers to have multiple examples of a particular model as a dealer sample. We are talking 2 or 3 of a model, not a dozen. The dealer has to convince the ATF that it is necessary for their demonstrations to interested agency that they have multiple copies.
[h=3]Source(s):[/h]Was ATF liason for a licensed machine gun manufacturer.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100929150444AAGqord

 

[Bonestorm]

Last I looked, states do not have the authority to violate our Constitutional rights. This is not a states rights issue, and has not been since the 14th Amendment was ratified. It is a load of bovine cookies that SCOTUS has to make that declaration. But then, people seem to be all too willing these days to allow government to decide which rights we get to keep, as if those rights came from government in the first place. That isn't how I learned the way our government was founded.

Are you suggesting that the right to carry a gun is some sort of "God-given" right?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Are you suggesting that the right to carry a gun is some sort of "God-given" right?

Well, arms, but yes it is. Or inherent right, if you are of the atheist persuasion.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

i think of it more along the lines of allowing a license to drive a certain vehicle. some states may require extra certification or not allow a certain vehicle on the road. if this violates the commerce clause, then federal supremacy is invoked and i believe that this has already happened and that is why licenses are accepted nationwide.

that would actually be the full faith and credit clause.