National reciprocity and Pa. Republican Reps.

[DClan]

As taken from the website "Shall not be Questioned "- National Reciprocity and Pennsylvania Votes;

"A few years ago, I decided to make a note of which lawmakers sought or ran on NRA’s endorsement who initially refused to step up and support national reciprocity. After people reported calling the offices of the mysteriously missing potential co-sponsors, several stepped up and signed on.
While looking at the Pennsylvania angle again for this year, imagine my surprise when I found some key names left off of the sponsors list – again. These are the members of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation who support the bill:

Rep. Mike Kelly (R)
Rep. Tom Marino (R)
Rep. Tim Murphy (R)
Rep. Scott Perry (R)
Rep. Keith Rothfus (R)
Rep. Bill Shuster (R)
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R)

I might add that Rep. Rothfus actually didn’t have the NRA endorsement last time around. He had an A rating, but with the incumbent Democrat’s record, it was issued to the incumbent. These are the members of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation who sought & received NRA’s endorsement in 2012 against anti-gun opponents who are not on that list:

Rep. Lou Barletta (R)
Rep. Charlie Dent (R)
Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (R)
Rep. Pat Meehan (R)
Rep. Joe Pitts (R)

For 2014, Rep. Gerlach is retiring, but the others will be on the ballot. Reps. Dent, Barletta, and Pitts are expected to be pretty safe, so I’m surprised that they are not willing to help their law-abiding license holder constituents. In fact, Charlie Cook has all three of those seats, plus Rep. Meehan, in the “Solid Republican” category as not really competitive.
In 2014, I find it hard to get excited by candidates who don’t even think that law-abiding citizens who undergo regular background checks still can’t be trusted with firearms. If you live in any of these districts, it might be good to let them know that you noticed they wanted your vote in 2012, but that they won’t even get on board with national reciprocity.

[Metz]

I would love to carry everywhere. But from the legal prospective, FEDS will be forcing (some non willing states) to obey certain federal regulation, that citizens of said state are not cool with. Another overreach of federal authority, that I disagree in principles. No different from AWB for that matter. Think about it.

[coat4gun]

I would love to carry everywhere. But from the legal prospective, FEDS will be forcing (some non willing states) to obey certain federal regulation, that citizens of said state are not cool with. Another overreach of federal authority, that I disagree in principles. No different from AWB for that matter. Think about it.

I disagree. The 2nd amendment protects a personal right. When a State joins the United States they agree to abide by the US Constitution and BOR.

The 10th amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If you work through this from the end, the 2nd is by default a right "or to the people" so the 2nd "prohibited by it to the States" prohibits the States from infringing and "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" says the US can't infringe.

It IS the job of the US gov to protect the Constitution and BOR. The 2nd is an individual right and the 10th puts it off limits to infringement by both Feds and State.

This is my take on it anyway.... Crazy thing, not many in authority agree so we are all left groveling to retain our rights.

[tl_3237]

The Federal nexus for National Reciprocity has already been established under the Commerce Clause. Though I believe in 10th amendment rights, until they repeal LEOSA and the GFSZA of 1995 as a direct infringement thereto, any argument against reciprocity under the 10th would be contradictory and estopped.

[Kabloosh]

I lost a lot of respect for the NRA when I found out about the pigeon shooting I believe in Bucks County and how many high ranking officials in the organization will take trips to take part in the illegal activity, but it is illegal, but isn't really enforced in the state. Plus, it is just inhumane to shoot poorly taken care of birds that are just used for target practice. Quite sadistic if you ask me.
It is one thing to shoot an animal in the wild for a purpose, but to shoot animals that are purposely raised in poor conditions so they can't run, and then shoot them with loads that clearly do not instantly kill the bird, and many times they don't die until hours later in agony is enough to make me lose interest in providing money to the organization even if they are the premier pro 2nd amendment organization in the country.

[Armor Snail]

Citation of law please?

I knew in 13 there was talk of a bill to ban it but AFAIK there was no law at this time currently.

[Metz]

I disagree. The 2nd amendment protects a personal right. When a State joins the United States they agree to abide by the US Constitution and BOR.

The 10th amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If you work through this from the end, the 2nd is by default a right "or to the people" so the 2nd "prohibited by it to the States" prohibits the States from infringing and "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" says the US can't infringe.

It IS the job of the US gov to protect the Constitution and BOR. The 2nd is an individual right and the 10th puts it off limits to infringement by both Feds and State.

Interesting. And makes sense.

[Mango]

I would love to carry everywhere. But from the legal prospective, FEDS will be forcing (some non willing states) to obey certain federal regulation, that citizens of said state are not cool with. Another overreach of federal authority, that I disagree in principles. No different from AWB for that matter. Think about it.

This is exactly how I feel about it....

[JenniferG]

I attended Hegins Pigeon shoot years ago. Nothing wrong with it. I knew a guy that used to catch pigeons at the 30th train station and sell them to the shoot. It was a public service to all of us that had to work out of there.

Hoe Pitts has always been pro gun. An oversight on his staff's part or there is something in the bill itself that may be objectionable such as an amendment or something that democrat gun banners have inserted.

[Kabloosh]

I attended Hegins Pigeon shoot years ago. Nothing wrong with it. I knew a guy that used to catch pigeons at the 30th train station and sell them to the shoot. It was a public service to all of us that had to work out of there.

Hoe Pitts has always been pro gun. An oversight on his staff's part or there is something in the bill itself that may be objectionable such as an amendment or something that democrat gun banners have inserted.

We certainly do not share the same viewpoint there.

Would you be for trapping feral cats or stray dogs and using them as target practice too?