National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act Scheduled for House Floor on Tuesday

[Sri Hanuman]

Wrote my congressman on the issue. Luckily he's the guy that originally co-sponsored the bill.
TEXAS NO 1 BITCHEZ!

I mean, ahem... surely the calm collected mind will prevail.
Good day, gentlemen.

[Res Judicata]

I don't really know. My personal take is that if a person is going to go through a certain state, they need to respect the laws of that state just as you have to respect the laws of the state you live in. Inconvenient but that is how it is. Just like how I have to pay state income tax in California now, but I didn't in Florida. In other words, what right?

Thats besides my other personal belief that all states really should allow concealed carry to appropriate citizens of that state and not just a select few.

Regarding interstate travel, we do have the the "safe passage" provision of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), but it's very limited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm...e.22_provision

[dwkfym]

Interesting. Thanks for that. It is indeed limited.
Quoted for others to read:

Source: Wikipedia. Not actual provisions from the statute.

One of the law's provisions was that persons traveling from one place to another cannot be incarcerated for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas) and the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, in a locked container.[7]
An example of this would be that someone driving from Virginia to a competition in Vermont with a locked hard case containing an unloaded handgun and a box of ammunition in the trunk could not be prosecuted in New Jersey or New York City for illegal possession of a handgun provided that they did not stop in New Jersey or New York for an extended period of time.

[Southpaw]

Like a good American, I ignore the laws that don't make sense for. I've got a CCP in NC, and travel a lot. When I'm driving, despite state laws, I'm carrying. That might **** me someday, but I don't give police any reason to search my car so the likelihood of me getting pulled over and the gun found is low.

If I ever have to use the gun in those states to protect myself, I'll deal with that shitstorm when it happens.

[Res Judicata]

You should give that some additional thought. Getting caught someplace like NYC or Illinois with a gun and without a valid permit is potentially very, very bad.

It's not just getting pulled over. What if you have an accident? If it's in plain sight following an accident, you're screwed.

[dwkfym]

You're taking an insanely high risk (how many times in your life have you been pulled over, or someone spotted you carrying in the car without your knowledge, etc) vs. having to use your weapon? Both have life-ending consequences one way or another, but ones soooo much more likely to happen.

[Rock Ape]

If I ever have to use the gun in those states to protect myself, I'll deal with that shitstorm when it happens.

I don't live in the US so I guess my opinions on this subject are largely irrelivent however,

Breaking the law is breaking the law, every instance of crime - even if the weapon is just carried without due cause - is still a crime and this will have some negative effect upon the reputation of other gun users and give [pardon the pun] ammunition to the fuckstick do-gooders who would use that information/statistic(s) to lobby for tighter laws or worse on ownership and carry.

My opinion - if you carry in to a part of the country where you are not permitted to do so and, God forbid the worse happens, you shoot, basically you're no better than the gangbanger-hoodlum who carries without permit and uses.

You might not see it that way, or perhaps others but, regardless of what people think of the law, once you cross it, there's got to be a fucking good reason why you'd not take the full extent of the book for doing so.

I ignore the laws that don't make sense

That defense is about as solid as ... "liar, liar pants of fire"

[Res Judicata]

As a Brit, you would know about fuckstick do-gooders. They've wrecked your country. I'm always astounded how your people threw away many of their natural and traditional rights that they bought at such great price. The traditional right of self-defense has largely been abrogated over there in view of a model that the police will protect you as parents do their children. Of course, as we say here: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

But yeah, illegal carry is generally a very bad idea. I could see an exception is for highly dangerous areas with impossible gun laws, but there are trade offs.

[Rock Ape]

As a Brit, you would know about fuckstick do-gooders. They've wrecked your country. I'm always astounded how your people threw away many of their natural and traditional rights that they bought at such great price. The traditional right of self-defense has largely been abrogated over there in view of a model that the police will protect you as parents do their children.

Take heed then.. Much of the strenuous enforcement of our gun laws and how they came about were due to instances of crime involving weapons on this side of the pond.

Don't get me wrong, I have zero interest in trying to debate the pro's of illegalising gun ownership vs. the supposed reduction in gun crime however, stupid people have done stupid things with guns, that has a contributory effect on how ownership is viewed by those who then have some power to negatively effect those honest and law abiding owners.

[bobyclumsyninja]

But yeah, illegal carry is generally a very bad idea. I could see an exception is for highly dangerous areas with impossible gun laws

You know that's why we have too many shootings here in the city right? People having guns anyway, because of perceived high levels of danger.
long...so, spoiler

Spoiler:

Most murders here go unsolved, same for shootings in general. A lady I know suffered through her toddler son being shot. Someone using your exception got in an argument, and missed. That's why tight gun laws are ok by me. That and the numerous friends my gf has discovered are now dead, due to handgun violence. Most of whom had **** all to do with any str33t stuff.

I have quite a few LEO friends here, and I've never heard any of them complain about not enough guns here in the city, even when I brought it up. That tells me something. We argue about officers-on-scene vs. camera/response, or the Pats, or talk guitar...but citizens not having access to enough guns is not something they are foaming about. It's quite the opposite.

In the countryside, in sparse states? I can see the need, but where things are dense, the risk of accident, crossfire, etc. is too great. I don't care where you came in from, if you're here in Boston, and you're not an LEO, or licensed via this state, it's not welcome. Suck it up, or **** off somewhere else.

There's something more insultingly maternal to me, about pushing other states' gun laws onto ours, than expecting the police to do the police stuff. Anyone from the city want to weigh in?

Take heed then.. Much of the strenuous enforcement of our gun laws and how they came about were due to instances of crime involving weapons on this side of the pond.

^^^^^^