The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 11, 2014, 02:55 PM   #26
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayneinFL
Why not have a plain old state license that covers you in your state and similar states- then add to that system a national license to cover all 50 states, but requires additional training?
How long do you think it will take the feds to make that sort of a system and at what cost? Another billion or so? It's so easy to think up a system, much different to develop and deploy it.

The states have been doing a fine job with reciprocity without getting the federal government's mucky maulers in the mix. Reciprocity is making strides every year. Let the state residents put pressure on their state government to work out reciprocity.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old February 11, 2014, 06:26 PM   #27
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
The states have been doing a fine job with reciprocity without getting the federal government's mucky maulers in the mix.
And yet even though we've had a CWFL permitting system since 1987, I still have to put away my gun when I'm sent to IL, CA, MN, NV, and anywhere from MD north on the east coast. As much as I travel, I wouldn't mind paying a couple of hundred bucks.

Quote:
Reciprocity is making strides every year. Let the state residents put pressure on their state government to work out reciprocity.
I can put all the pressure in the world on CA, and it won't help.

Quote:
How long do you think it will take the feds to make that sort of a system and at what cost? Another billion or so? It's so easy to think up a system, much different to develop and deploy it.
It could be as simple as adding an FBI background check and an NRA training requirement, then stamping an endorsement on the same state license you have now.

Quote:
I live in PA where there are no skill or educational requirements to obtain a license. The fee is low ($20).
And why would that change?
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 11, 2014, 07:19 PM   #28
WilliamDahl
Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2014
Location: Where you can find REAL BBQ.
Posts: 19
There are some people who choose to have non-resident CHLs (i.e. from other states than they live in) due to various reasons -- cheaper, recognized by more states than their home state, etc. As such, a national reciprocity that relied on your home state license would affect those people.

I'm all for States Rights (even though the War of Northern Aggression pretty much destroyed that concept), but States Rights should not be able to counter our natural rights which were reaffirmed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Should a state be able to restrict a particular religion? The same goes for our right to bear arms.
WilliamDahl is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 09:50 AM   #29
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
Quote:
The states have been doing a fine job with reciprocity without getting the federal government's mucky maulers in the mix.
---
And yet even though we've had a CWFL permitting system since 1987, I still have to put away my gun when I'm sent to IL, CA, MN, NV, and anywhere from MD north on the east coast. As much as I travel, I wouldn't mind paying a couple of hundred bucks.
And you had to put it away for many more places than that just 5 or 6 years ago. Point is we're getting there without the feds help.

Quote:
Quote:
Reciprocity is making strides every year. Let the state residents put pressure on their state government to work out reciprocity.
---
I can put all the pressure in the world on CA, and it won't help.
Don't go there. I don't, ever, and never will as long at they ignore the constitution.

Quote:
Quote:
How long do you think it will take the feds to make that sort of a system and at what cost? Another billion or so? It's so easy to think up a system, much different to develop and deploy it.
---
It could be as simple as adding an FBI background check and an NRA training requirement, then stamping an endorsement on the same state license you have now.
What seems simple in your mind is not so simple in reality. How will law officers in other states verify/validate the federal stamp on your state issued license is real? A special federal (FBI) database access would be required for them to pull that specific information. Quick access to that information and the development of the system supporting it would be expensive and is not simple. Also, if the fed gov passed an act that would allow all lawful people to carry in all shall issue states with FBI background and NRA training requirements, then, the feds will dictate what that training entails and what pass and fail criteria will be. This is all beside that fact that the NRA and the fed gov don't get along very well, and the NRA should not agree with requirements necessary to practice a constitutional right (which seems to be what you advocate). Constitutional carry is what you should be fighting for, and should be what you are writing to your state reps about. That worked well for some other states, and will for more in the future as long as the citizens aren't so defeatist.

Quote:
Quote:
I live in PA where there are no skill or educational requirements to obtain a license. The fee is low ($20).
---
And why would that change?
You really don't get it. Add requirements, and you will pay more. Some sort of FBI check, and the fed to stamp your state license, will cost time and money. This right should be FREE to all lawful citizens.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.

Last edited by noelf2; February 12, 2014 at 09:56 AM.
noelf2 is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 10:02 AM   #30
WilliamDahl
Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2014
Location: Where you can find REAL BBQ.
Posts: 19
What we should be working towards is less federal gun "laws". Besides, every one of them that came after the 2nd Amendment is blatantly unconstitutional since it violates the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" clause.
WilliamDahl is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 10:42 AM   #31
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
2- States rights
In my opening post its states this,
Quote:
“The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of2014 fully protects state sovereignty, because it does not establish national standards for the practice of concealed carry, does not allow for a national concealed carry permit, and does not allow individuals to circumvent their home state’s permitting laws.
My emphasis.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 11:46 AM   #32
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
In my opening post its states this,
Quote:
“The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of2014 fully protects state sovereignty, because it does not establish national standards for the practice of concealed carry, does not allow for a national concealed carry permit, and does not allow individuals to circumvent their home state’s permitting laws.
With respect, I just don't think your emphasis makes sense. It seems contradictory. How can an act fully protect state sovereignty when it usurps state sovereignty? Even if a miracle happened, and the fed gov came up with a redundant act that made constitutional carry the law of the land (as if it isn't already), the states can still ignore that act and prosecute people that don't follow the state law. You will get little, if any, help from the feds while you're in jail.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.

Last edited by noelf2; February 12, 2014 at 11:51 AM.
noelf2 is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 12:13 PM   #33
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
We're always yelling about this or that being constitutional or unconstitutional... unless we agree with the stated goal, then we don't seem to care.

Any type of national reciprocity has to be based on a power that's been delegated to the federal government and/or the federal government using it's power to protect the ENUMERATED rights set forth therein.

Right now, carrying a gun is not a (recognized) right. It should be, but it isn't. What you or I think does not matter, what the SCOTUS says is all that counts.

So, first we need a recognized constitutional right to carry outside the home THEN we need a lawsuit, probably based on the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th amendment to prevent states from abridging those privileges.

(So goes my best understanding, IANAL)
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 12:49 PM   #34
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,617
Quote:
The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014 fully protects state sovereignty, because (...)
When the federal government passes a law forcing a state to do something it's not already doing, that's hardly protecting sovereignty.

Brian's right. We need to fix this through the courts before we can push a nationwide change. If we don't, our opponents will.

Imagine this bill got signed into law (which is not going to happen in this administration). A coalition of states including, say, New York, New Jersey, and California mounts a legal challenge. The argument? 10th Amendment violations and the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to home defense. What happens if they win that one?

Yeah.

This is a waste of time and resources, and it's only being pushed because a few politicians want to keep their NRA ratings up.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 02:28 PM   #35
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
And you had to put it away for many more places than that just 5 or 6 years ago. Point is we're getting there without the feds help.
Nope. 5 or 6 years ago we were at 30 something reciprocal states, and it's about the same. We lose about as many as we gain each year. For example, we gained no states, and lost WA and PA this year. (And guess what- I just gained PA as one of my areas.)

Quote:
I can put all the pressure in the world on CA, and it won't help.
Don't go there. I don't, ever, and never will as long at they ignore the constitution.
I'll quit and take a $35,000 pay cut. Seems like cutting off my nose to spite my face. But I'm sure my family will support the decision.

While we're discussing life choices, why haven't you left PA for AZ? They don't have constitutional carry in PA. Don't go there. Don't live there. Don't work there.

Quote:
What seems simple in your mind is not so simple in reality. How will law officers in other states verify/validate the federal stamp on your state issued license is real?
How do they do it now? I've been pulled over in NC and GA. We didn't have a problem.

Quote:
Constitutional carry is what you should be fighting for, and should be what you are writing to your state reps about. That worked well for some other states, and will for more in the future as long as the citizens aren't so defeatist.
Great, and I'll continue to fight for that. But I can't fight for it after I'm found dead in Philly because I was stuck on principle.

Quote:
You really don't get it. Add requirements, and you will pay more. Some sort of FBI check, and the fed to stamp your state license, will cost time and money.
You have a $20 license without a training requirement. That's what they had in Missouri. Problem they had a lot of prohibited places, and no one wanted to let an untrained license holder into those places. People who paid a minimal fee and didn't want to carry everywhere didn't want to budge on a training requirement. So the legislature came up with an "enhanced" license as a compromise. You pay the old fee, you can't carry into a church, for example. People who wanted to carry in the otherwise prohibited places are the ones who pay the extra fees- there was no reason for the normal license fee to go up.

Quote:
This right should be FREE to all lawful citizens.
I agree. But it's not free. So, do I stick to my principles and give up the right entirely? Or do I give a little to get a lot, and work for "Constitutional Carry" in the meantime? Seems obvious to me.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 03:40 PM   #36
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
Imagine this bill got signed into law (which is not going to happen in this administration). A coalition of states including, say, New York, New Jersey, and California mounts a legal challenge. The argument? 10th Amendment violations and the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to home defense. What happens if they win that one?
The 10th Amendment would be a pretty weak argument. The legislative branch can get around almost anything by invoking the commerce clause.

As for the issue of home defense, federal courts are already applying the 2nd Amendment to carry outside the home.

I agree that it would be difficult to get signed with this administration. I see it more as an option for 2016.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 04:06 PM   #37
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,807
Wayne in Virginia, we're getting better every year. Closer and closer to constitutional carry. And I can carry in PA with reciprocity without getting shot (done it). If, in the future, Virginia gun laws and reciprocity gets worse, I will give priority to constitutional carry states. Until then, I will keep fighting the good fight in Richmond with the VCDL. We make progress every year.

Quote:
How do they do it now? I've been pulled over in NC and GA. We didn't have a problem.
Well they look at your driver's license and your CCW, CHP (whatever). They "might" check your name on a criminal database for existing warrants and such. Sans warrants, they give you your ticket or warning and you are on your way (real police officers that know better can correct if I'm wrong please). So should the criminal database that they check also account for all non-criminals that have federal reciprocity stamps? First, that would be a disgrace. Second, it would require time, money, and people to get the info for all non-criminal people in this country with federal reciprocity stamps into the criminal database. If not using the criminal database, a new database and info check would need to be created and employed. No matter how it's done, it isn't going to be cheap. Get it now? Maybe not. I give up...
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 05:33 PM   #38
ThesNazud
Member
 
Join Date: June 3, 2013
Location: Marshall, IL
Posts: 61
Part of me wonders if they know this won't go through, and are using it as a pawn, so they appear to 'compromise' when they try again with one the dems would like better... Kinda like the proverbial foot in the door....
ThesNazud is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 05:51 PM   #39
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,657
Quote:
Part of me wonders if they know this won't go through, and are using it as a pawn, so they appear to 'compromise' when they try again with one the dems would like better...
I'm not so certain there will be a follow-up.

I believe Tom Servo hit the nail on the head with his comment about NRA ratings in post #34. If the goal is to score political points, no follow-up is necessary.

Frankly, I'm not sure that an intelligent compromise is possible, given the current ideological gulf on the gun-rights issue.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 06:48 PM   #40
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
Wayne in Virginia, we're getting better every year. Closer and closer to constitutional carry. And I can carry in PA with reciprocity without getting shot (done it). If, in the future, Virginia gun laws and reciprocity gets worse, I will give priority to constitutional carry states. Until then, I will keep fighting the good fight in Richmond with the VCDL. We make progress every year.
I'm happy for you and your situation. But if I travel to PA, I don't have the option to carry. They dropped us because our permits are good for 7 years.

Virgina is getting better, I'm sure, but you'll find that eventually, it plateaus off. Some states don't allow for reciprocity. And most shall issue states have a clause that allows for reciprocity for states with laws that are substantively similar, and each state interprets that differently. For example, even though we have a training requirement, we allow reciprocity with many other states that do not have that requirement. Even though we require an FBI background check, we allow reciprocity with many other states that do not have that requirement. But give us another couple of years on the license, and some states have booted us.

I agree the long term solution is constitutional carry. Or a court decision requiring states to issue permits to non residents.

Quote:
So should the criminal database that they check also account for all non-criminals that have federal reciprocity stamps? First, that would be a disgrace
Outright forbidding a basic right of self defense, based solely on the state your permit was issued in, is an even bigger disgrace.

Quote:
Second, it would require time, money, and people to get the info for all non-criminal people in this country with federal reciprocity stamps into the criminal database. If not using the criminal database, a new database and info check would need to be created and employed. No matter how it's done, it isn't going to be cheap. Get it now? Maybe not. I give up...
You keep lambasting me for "not getting it". The part you don't seem to get yourself is that I have not in any way suggested that we should restrict the existing state permitting system, or pull any money from it. Any cost of any "national carry" system should fall on the people willing to pay extra. Any further restrictions should fall on those people as well. Then if you're happy with your situation, you're not affected.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 09:01 PM   #41
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayneinFL
I'm happy for you and your situation. But if I travel to PA, I don't have the option to carry. They dropped us because our permits are good for 7 years.
Are you certain?

My understanding is that Florida residents can still carry in PA on their FL permits. What the PA attorney general did was to slam the door on PA residents carrying in PA on out-of-state permits rather than getting a PA license to carry firearms (LTCF).

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/pennsylvania.pdf

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; February 13, 2014 at 09:02 AM. Reason: Typo
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 09:22 PM   #42
sfwusc
Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2013
Posts: 79
I got a better one for everyone. A few line federal law.


If you can legally own a firearm under federal standards and laws, then you have the right to carry it on your person, concealed or unconcealed. State laws and rules concerning where you can carry should still be enforced, but the ability to restrict carry from out of state residents shall be illegal.

Aka no permit needed and no class required.
sfwusc is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 09:34 PM   #43
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
Are you certain?

My understanding is that Florida residents can still carry in PA of their FL permits. What the PA attorney general did was to slam the door on PA residents carrying in PA on out-of-state permits rather than getting a PA license to carry firearms (LTCF).
I was mistaken. I misread the FL site. Caught it when I looked at PA site. You are correct.

And when we lost Washington, it was because we extended the right to carry to veterans under 21.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 09:07 AM   #44
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by noelf2
And you had to put it away for many more places than that just 5 or 6 years ago. Point is we're getting there without the feds help.
I disagree that we're "getting there."

I hold a home state permit and three non-resident permits. The number of states in which this assortment allows me to carry concealed has been reduced by three or four states, total, in the twelve or so years since I obtained the fourth permit.

That's not what I consider progress.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 10:20 AM   #45
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
I hold a home state permit and three non-resident permits. The number of states in which this assortment allows me to carry concealed has been reduced by three or four states, total, in the twelve or so years since I obtained the fourth permit.

That's not what I consider progress.
Most times that happens because a state has either dropped some requirements and is closer to constitutional carry, or the other states are retaliating against a state that stopped honoring their permits for some reason. Which was it for you? And, do you think a federal law/act will force the states that now discriminate against your carry permits to roll over and say "Oh, OK, we'll like you now!" A federal law/act would be ineffective.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 12:31 PM   #46
WilliamDahl
Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2014
Location: Where you can find REAL BBQ.
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfwusc View Post
I got a better one for everyone. A few line federal law.


If you can legally own a firearm under federal standards and laws, then you have the right to carry it on your person, concealed or unconcealed. State laws and rules concerning where you can carry should still be enforced, but the ability to restrict carry from out of state residents shall be illegal.

Aka no permit needed and no class required.
I have a better one for you:

The right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is absolute and not subject to any sort of restrictive interpretation. All federal and state laws that attempt to limit this are hereby deemed unconstitutional and void.
WilliamDahl is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 05:35 PM   #47
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by noelf2
Most times that happens because a state has either dropped some requirements and is closer to constitutional carry, or the other states are retaliating against a state that stopped honoring their permits for some reason. Which was it for you? And, do you think a federal law/act will force the states that now discriminate against your carry permits to roll over and say "Oh, OK, we'll like you now!" A federal law/act would be ineffective.
A mandatory recognition of my home state permit would mean that it doesn't matter whether or not any other state "likes" me, they would have to recognize my RKBA within their territory. If a federal law requires the other 49 states to recognize my home state permit, how -- exactly -- would it be "ineffective"?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 06:25 PM   #48
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
If a federal law requires the other 49 states to recognize my home state permit, how -- exactly -- would it be "ineffective"?
Here are some exact examples: Federal law says possession/use of marijuana is illegal, but several states ignore the federal law and allow growing, possessing, and smoking of it (basically thumbing their noses at the feds). Federal law says you can peaceably transport a firearm through states even though some of the states or cities within don't allow any sort of unregistered firearm, they arrest you anyway, and the feds don't come to your aid. States are enacting laws now that make any new federal 2A restrictions (so called sensible firearms laws) like bullet limits and assault weapon bans not enforceable in the state. I put my money on the probability that many states would do the same thing with any federal reciprocity act.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.

Last edited by noelf2; February 13, 2014 at 06:48 PM.
noelf2 is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 09:03 PM   #49
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by noelf2
States are enacting laws now that make any new federal 2A restrictions (so called sensible firearms laws) like bullet limits and assault weapon bans not enforceable in the state. I put my money on the probability that many states would do the same thing with any federal reciprocity act.
It's not at all clear that such laws are constitutional. As it stands today, the only reason they're still on the books is that the feds haven't enacted any new gun laws with which to test them.

That said, rather than formally passing anti-reciprocity laws, I believe that jurisdictions like NYC will simply disregard the law altogether and arrest out-of-state CHL holders anyway, then wait for a pro-2A USDOJ to take them to court over it.

Also, I suspect that several states will suddenly enact stiff penalties for carry of an unregistered handgun by a license holder, and that the procedure for registering one from out-of-state will be annoyingly inconvenient.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 11:26 AM   #50
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,544
Quote:
I've watched folks qualified to carry via LEOSA shoot, and some of them give me pause as well
LOL, I'm always said the most dangerous job in LE is Firearms instructor.

All joking aside, I dead set against federal mandatory training. I'm all for training, but not MANDATORY training.

Things change every two years in the federal government. You never know who's in power. The last thing I want is a government to sets the standard so high that one could never pass it.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14311 seconds with 7 queries