need to read and sigh the petition

[holdover]

only have to August 17 to get 100,000

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/national-reciprocity-nations-17-million-concealed-handgun-permit-holders

[JimF]

DONE!!

[SteveC]

Done. And hello to the forum, it's been quite a while since I've posted although I remain a loyal lurker... :)

[JB White]

OK...but you guys might have to wait a while for an answer.


Needs 95,949 signatures by August 17, 2017 to get a response from the White House

It's going to take me a long time to verify that many signatures!

[Oyaji]

Done

[Randy]

Done !

[SMOKEY]

Me, too.

[dave]

Waste of time, NRA has 5 million members and have been trying to do this for awhile. You think 100,000 will mean any thing to the Wt. House, dream on! And what about all you "state rights" guys. You can't have it both ways!

[JB White]

Waste of time, NRA has 5 million members and have been trying to do this for awhile. You think 100,000 will mean any thing to the Wt. House, dream on! And what about all you "state rights" guys. You can't have it both ways!

I take it you did exactly what the original thread header said to do? You read it, and you sighed. ;)
I am taking the States Rights angle into consideration. That's why I haven't signed yet. I've got that "firearms permit vs. drivers license" thing going on in my head.

If I violate a local traffic law I get a ticket. If I violate a firearms law I go to jail and lose my property. Yet a State should have a right to determine the training and qualifications for carrying a weapon within their borders.
Would any of you want a van load of technically legal Chicago gangbangers toting steel in your hometown? Chances are they shouldn't be allowed to drive in your State either, but they are.

There needs to be some reciprocity, but I don't think a automatic blanketed 'right to carry' will ever be extended. There will be strings attached. I think people have learned their lessons contending with Illinois drivers on their roads.

[Bill D]

I take it you did exactly what the original thread header said to do? You read it, and you sighed. ;)

Would any of you want a van load of technically legal Chicago gangbangers toting steel in your hometown? Chances are they shouldn't be allowed to drive in your State either, but they are.

Chicago gangbangers being what they are, I doubt that there is any law that could be written to prevent them from "toting steel" in my hometown or anywhere else. I get what you say about states rights but right now I either avoid Illinois or sweat razor blades every time I illegally drive through your fair state. (Not that I still own any firearms. Mine were all lost when I tried to cross Eleven-Mile reservoir with them in a leaky rowboat during a thunder storm.)

[JimW in Ore]

Done

[Herschel]

Exactly what does the HR say? Have any of you read it? Perhaps someone can find it and post a link or quote in it's entirety.

[JB White]

Chicago gangbangers being what they are, I doubt that there is any law that could be written to prevent them from "toting steel" in my hometown or anywhere else.

Avoiding the probability-possibility grey area, suffice it to say that as of now your Sheriff has the legal means to stop them cold if he wants to. No permit waving smirks from a rag tag bunch of 'technically legal' cretins as they drive off towards the county line.

I'm certain we could come up with more hypothetical/plausible scenarios, but that's the one I chose to use. :)

[Bill D]

Avoiding the probability-possibility grey area, suffice it to say that as of now your Sheriff has the legal means to stop them cold if he wants to. No permit waving smirks from a rag tag bunch of 'technically legal' cretins as they drive off towards the county line.

I'm certain we could come up with more hypothetical/plausible scenarios, but that's the one I chose to use. :)

I have faith in my Sheriff's ability to stop them cold in any case. What this law would do is put the onus on your public safety officials to assure that the cretins are denied the permits to wave in my Sheriff's face. I would never be in favor of any law which requires that just any low life be issued a concealed permit. In Colorado, our standards are much higher.

[dave]

[QUOTE=JB White;503703]I take it you did exactly what the original thread header said to do? You read it, and you sighed. ;)

Sorry, but I did NOT read it or sign. I never bother with these on-line petitions (or mail types). They sway no one who is opposed to the subject to begin with!

[JB White]

I have faith in my Sheriff's ability to stop them cold in any case. What this law would do is put the onus on your public safety officials to assure that the cretins are denied the permits to wave in my Sheriff's face. I would never be in favor of any law which requires that just any low life be issued a concealed permit. In Colorado, our standards are much higher.

In Illinois the prerequisite is 21 or older, valid FOID which means one hasn't any FELONY convictions. Complete the approved course and pay the fees. Easy-peasy if one has nothing but a short Juvie list and a couple of misdemeanors on record. $335 and Bob's yer uncle.

[JB White]

Sorry, but I did NOT read it or sign. I never bother with these on-line petitions (or mail types). They sway no one who is opposed to the subject to begin with!

You're right of course. What it does do though is give those who are unopposed a stack of paper to wave while they blurt out numbers as they speak. Sometimes it's a small step but a step nonetheless.
That my friend, is why I'm mentally wavering at the moment.