TexasCHLforum.com

EconDoc wrote:If the feds can force one state to accept another state's CHL, then they have both the authority and a reason to force all states to accept "national standards" on who can have a CHL. If they force "shall issue" that would be very good, but, if they require "may issue with good cause" then it could wipe out 25 years of nationwide progress on CHL in a stroke. My opinion is that is exactly what the anti-gun crowd would try to do, and it would be more difficult to combat if we had nationwide reciprocity by federal law. Think this through and keep in mind that the anti's have already introduce such a nationwide "may issue with good cause" bill in congress.

Exactly, they have virtually no chance of getting their way on the state level since they'd have over 27 separate battles to fight against the odds. This bill is a Trojan Horse for the anti-gunners no matter what the original motivation was and they will use it to attack and roll back CC.

C-dub wrote:If the fed put restrictions or requirements on the driver's licenses I am unaware of them.

I thought I posted something earlier this morning in this thread from my phone, but I guess it didn't make it through. I had mused that we always seem to like it when a state has pre-emption, but now that the fed is trying to have pre-emption we're a bit skeptical. I understand why, but this still seems like a good thing to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Federally mandated standards for state driver's licenses or ID cards

Driver's license implications

The REAL ID Act's implications for driver's licenses and ID cards is detailed in Title II of the Act. Title II of REAL ID — “Improved Security for Driver’s License and Personal Identification Cards” — repeals the driver's licenses provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act,[14] also known as the "9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004", that was enacted in December 2004. Section 7212 of that law established a cooperative state-federal process, via a negotiated rule-making procedure, to create federal standards for driver’s licenses.

Instead, the Real ID Act directly imposes specific federal driver’s license standards.

The REAL ID Act Driver's License Summary[15] details the following provisions of the Act's driver's license title:

Authority
Data Retention and Storage
DL/ID Document Standards
Grants to States
Immigration Requirements
Linking of Databases
Minimum DL/ID Issuance Standards
Minimum Standards for Federal Use
Repeal of 9/11 Commission Implementation Act DL/ID Provisions
Security and Fraud Prevention Standards
Verification of Documents

After 2011, "a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements" specified in the REAL ID Act. The DHS will continue to consider additional ways in which a REAL ID license can or should be used for official federal purposes without seeking the approval of Congress before doing so. States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and IDs, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. The federal Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security check-in at airports, so bearers of non-compliant documents would no longer be able to travel on common carrier aircraft without additional screening unless they had an alternative government-issued photo ID.[16]

People born on or after December 1, 1964, will have to obtain a REAL ID by December 1, 2014. Those born before December 1, 1964, will have until December 1, 2017 to obtain their REAL ID.[17]

The national license/ID standards cover:

Rex B wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

AEA wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... latestnews

If this passes, what happens with the hold out Illinois?
This should really torque up Bloomberg!

As much as this sounds too good to be true..........
It may be unconstitutional as the States have rights.

I look at it the same as if a state had to recognize your marriage, divorce or driver's license. I don't really see it as any infringement on a States rights.

From that POV, if the feds can force a state to accept another's CCW, they can force us to accept a gay marriage license.
Something to think about.

My position is the 2nd Amendment says all that needs to be said.

your more worried about gay people then your right to have a gun?

We took a real quick vacation out to California last week, it would have been nice to have been able to carry out there, esp through a couple of neighborhoods we drove through in LA, ugh. However, I would rather leave my guns here in TX if it means having some dude in DC tell TEXAS what people have to learn, and what our laws must be, in order to carry because people in IL aren't comfy with our "gun carry'n ways"

Should standards be inserted into the bill I believe they should be minimum standards, eg minimal background check (think NICS check, one that qualifies for a 5 year NICS exemption would be encouraged), minimal proof of proficiency (Hunters education would suffice), minimal safety training (Once again Hunters ed would suffice), and be able to purchase a handgun from an FFL (or be current active duty military). At this point you should have standards that are well within reach of every state, in fact almost all states that issue a license would exceed these standards already.

G.A. Heath wrote:Should standards be inserted into the bill I believe they should be minimum standards.

Should be, yes. Will be? No.

Once again history scares me on this one. The firearms owner protection act should have been a great thing for gun owners. Instead, we got the Hughes amendment.

Were winning in the courts, were winning in the arena of public opinion.

Why give the antis a way to hit us the only way the have left, the us legislature?

Benefits don't outweigh the risks on this one to me. Were winning state by state.

74novaman wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Should standards be inserted into the bill I believe they should be minimum standards.

Should be, yes. Will be? No.

Once again history scares me on this one. The firearms owner protection act should have been a great thing for gun owners. Instead, we got the Hughes amendment.

Were winning in the courts, were winning in the arena of public opinion.

Why give the antis a way to hit us the only way the have left, the us legislature?

Benefits don't outweigh the risks on this one to me. Were winning state by state.

Scary to give the Legislature more power to affect our rights. Currently there is enough of those who believe like us, that I am not too concerned. But, that can change at a whiff. Case in point, our current POTUS.

Exactly! do we really want legislators from NY, CA and IL having a say in what happens to Texans gun rights? uh, NO! on the face of it the bill looks nice, but it....oh shoot....I'm gonna say it....dang it all I've gotta say it....there's no way around it <sigh>...

it's one of those "slippery slope" things (I hate that phrase) and this one could slide right off the hill. call me paranoid, but I think they're out to get us.

The more I think about this, the more I am SURE it is a bad idea. The rewards if it came out nice would be good, but the risk is far far far too high. From a national gun owners database to the feds attemtping to institute a "may issue law" nationwide to anti-states setting legal traps for gun owners, not to mention states rights. Nope nope nope. Thanks I'll keep my VA license and just avoid states that don't recognize it if at all possible. Sure I would love to carry my gun when I visit my in-laws, but not at the cost that it could be. Going to call my rep and say "this may look good but don't go for it."

SewTexas wrote: call me paranoid, but I think they're out to get us.

It is not paranoia if they really are out to get you!

If this is NRA supported why the fear?

Beiruty wrote:If this is NRA supported why the fear?

Think about the law of unintended consequences. Something the NRA is not thinking about.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

Beiruty wrote:If this is NRA supported why the fear?

Think about the law of unintended consequences. Something the NRA is not thinking about.

They definitely should be! That's what they exist for!

Here are some things that could come with Federal involvement (skipping the whole issue of State's rights, and assuming that reciprocity won't be used as a pretext to eliminate carry or shall issue):

liability insurance requirement with a coverage minimum
increased licensing fees (if for no other reason than to pay for the increased cost of federal mandates)
restrictions on magazine capacity
limit on the number of magazines you can carry (probably to the one in the gun)
ammo restrictions --e.g., no HP or hand-loads
caliber restrictions --these could be anything, but for instance, no "Judge" because it shoots shotgun rounds
limit on the number of guns you can carry --forget about a BUG
limit and ID of the type of gun you can carry --for instance, you say you're going to carry a 1911, it will be on the license, and you can't carry anything else
additional instruction and proficiency requirements
publication of the names of license holders

Initially, any such restrictions probably won't be "required," but if the State doesn't adhere to the Federal "guidelines," its license won't grant reciprocity, so any gain to carry, say in New Jersey --something most of us will never do anyway because we will never voluntarily go to New Jersey-- will come at a cost where you do carry, or you'll lose existing reciprocity.

Beiruty wrote:If this is NRA supported why the fear?

The NRA is a national organization, is it not? Why then are there states with laws like California, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois? Apparently the NRA's ability to influence gun law is limited. Their power to affect legislation is likely somewhat in proportion to the number of people it effects. CC affects a small number of gun owners --most gun owners probably don't care about CC, since they're not getting licenses themselves-- so the political calculus will be different in the longer run. Reciprocity will come at a cost. The NRA may believe it is worth the cost. Maybe it will be, but I fear it won't.

Look at my list of possible restrictions and tell me which of them non license holders, the general public, and anti-gunners will consider to be "unreasonable"? I submit that adding such restrictions to Federal reciprocity requirements will not be politically difficult to do.