Even Harry is voting for this. Its amazing what elections can do to people and he doesn’t even have an opponent yet.

I have a carry permit, and would love for it to be valid in every state, but this seems to be trampling the 10th amendment. The U.S. government is already too far down that road for my taste, so asking them to take one more step, even one that benefits me, is uncomfortable. I’m still deliberating.

will federalize the law, giving congress even more power to screw with our ability to defend ourselves. Maybe I’m just ignorant about how it all works, and if so I’d appreciate enlightenment, but anytime I’ve seen the federal government get their hands on a civil liberty, it’s like a damn death knell.

For some reason this feels less like reinforcing the 2nd and more like expanding the power of the fed over the states and my right to self protection. Reciprocity kinda works, I’m leery of exchanging it for more federal power.

Is Chuck Schumer. If he values this phony “hate crimes” legislation more than he values gun control, though, I’d be shocked.

weapons if we have a license across states with similar laws? Just the thought that a black could commit interpreted racist driven violence on me and get 2 year sentence and I a white male commit the same interpreted racist driven violence on black man I would get 5 years. Seems a pathetic price to pay in my opinion.

I have a real problem with laws that apply unequal justice for the same crime just because some white person was deemed hateful. Yes this hate crimes bill makes me hate the purpose of it.

Congress has the power to mandate reciprocity under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. It also has the power under the current expansive Commerce Clause interpretation that allows them to regulate anything, even activities that take place entirely within a single state. In this particular case, there is actual movement (of people) between different states, so the Commerce Clause power is at least arguable.

We will of course disagree on what that is, but seriously, how many Framers back then would agree with this interpretation/exercise of federal power? Did the several States truly believe they were forfeiting this bit of sovereignty: the right to regulate whether people can conceal arms? I just can’t see it.

Maybe I’m the blind one, but the original meaning of the Constitution always seems to get (conveniently less certain) thrown under the bus by those factions who become blind to it when their pet issue can be championed at its expense. This why respect for the Constitution and the rule of law has deteriorated over the years. Sometimes respecting the law means telling yourself no, or is that only true for the other guy?

I’m sorry Erick, but as much as I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, I on principle, cannot support or ask others to support this provision.

This may be viewed along the lines as HR218 The Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act (now now Public Law 108-277), signed in 2004 by Bush. http://www.napo.org/HR218.pdf

The actual language in any final bill must be examined closely. For instance, the bill does not prohibit agencies from placing their own restrictions on active police officers.

Additionally, while HR218 includes provisions for allowing retired police in good standing to carry nationwide, there are significant requirements that render the law meaningless for most affected individuals. For instance a retired officer is required to firearms qualify annually and possess a photographic ID from the specific agency he or she retired from, that indicates firearms re-qualification within the prior 12 months. The reality is that many or most police agencies refuse to issue such certifications for a variety of reasons, such as liability issues. Qualifying at another agency is allowed under the law, but the ID must still be issued by the agency the officer retired from. Due to the narrow language of this clause, HR218 cannot apply to many people, despite the original legislative intent.

The federal government has no more authority over state-to-state right to carry than it has in making so-called “hate crimes” federal offenses. As mentioned by several, the amendment would be another step from which to further inroad state sovereignty. Already we are far down that road. There is no reason to give the national government any more power.

I was ready to fully support this legislation, but after reading these posts, I am concerned about the (additional) encroachment by the Fed Government on the States. While I am fairly knowledgeable on the 2nd Amendment, I am very ignorant on intersate commerce, etc. How do states agree to reciprocity with driver’s licenses? Is it purely a state to state thing?

I was ready to fully support this legislation, but after reading these posts, I am concerned about the (additional) encroachment by the Fed Government on the States. While I am fairly knowledgeable on the 2nd Amendment, I am very ignorant on intersate commerce, etc. How do states agree to reciprocity with driver’s licenses? Is it purely a state to state thing?