Earlier this week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced Senate Bill 446, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which would allow Americans to conceal carry a firearm across state lines. This bill strengthens both the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and the power of states to implement laws best-suited for the folks who live there, Cornyn said in a statement obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. About time. Source: https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/03/04/national-reciprocity-bill-makes-way-congress/
Without any commen sense requirements, such as liability insurance or mandatory training sessions, Democrats will have no choice but to shoot this down.
I'm sure they will..but not because of 'common sense' or other code words for controlling the peasants..it will be about dogma
You cannot expect States just roll over and let the Federal govt. force them to respect CCW permits from states that irresponsibly give them to anyone and everyone that applies. if you want states like NY, California, Mass, Illinois to respect other states CCWs, add a liability insurance requirement and 14 hour training course.
If states can legally be forced to accept and recognize homosexual marriage, they can also legally be forced to accept and recognized concealed carry permits from other states.
that's exactly what SCOTUS did with gay marriage...they decided enough states were ok with it , so they mandated it for all.....questionable logic but hey ..a good argument for reciprocity
Actually same sex marriage has 2 to 3 times the rate of domestic violence. We should end it. If it saves one life it would be worth it right? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-same-sex-domestic-violence-20140919-story.html http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29994648
I've always wanted to walk down 5th avenue with Smith and Wesson. It's something to look forward to for sure.
If we eliminate all guns, even if it saves one life it likewise would be worth it right? We could tie the two together in a bi-partisan deal.
how do you plan on doing that? if we eliminate one gun banner it would be worth it in the increase in freedom?
Nope. We need to make sure those in homosexual marriages have easier access to firearms to defend themselves. This law will go a long way to ensure equality in marriage.
Why would they need guns for those in homosexual marriages since you have already proposed to do away with those types of marriages?
This is the only way we can stop states like New Jersey from arresting and ruining good people from other states who are just driving through. We already got reciprocity for Driver Licence , Marriages and other things so I have no issue with being able to carry in all 50 states.
Such will not be happening within the united states under any circumstances. It is a physical impossibility to eliminate every single firearm in existence. As such there is no legitimate reason to continue discussing such as if it were even a remote possibility.
Just as it is suggested that you refrain from engaging in activity that wastes the time of others who wish to engage in a legitimate debate and discussion.
You are the one who made the inane statement about eliminating the existence of all firearms. Pray tell how many times have you brought this up, only to be repeatedly reminded that such cannot and will not come to pass?
SCOTUS has ruled many times that gun regulations are not unconstitutional, so all those that claim laws are unconstitutional, I suggest you take it up with SCOTUS. Or at least do what the constitution says to do, challenge the law and eventually will go to SCOTUS. That's how it works SCOTUS ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. Also, gay people getting married has no effect on those that oppose, at all. Anybody and everybody walking around with a gun effects other people's lives. As seen by the absurd amount of gun related deaths and victims this country sees And if states are sued for not allowing concealed carry from other states, and the courts rule it is unconstitutional, then they will have to abide. That's how our government works, as set up by the constitution
SCOTUS didn't say that all regulations are Constitutional. They wrote plainly in Miller, Heller and McDonald describing what the parameters for allowable restrictions were. Gun bans and magazine capacity restrictions are plainly unconstitutional.