looking for a brief and convincing argument against National Reciprocity

[L2R]

I am NOT wanting a debate for or against National Reciprocity.

I am looking for a convincing way to get my fellow gun group members to stop and think about it. They currently follow the NRA without any thought.

Living in NC means we have it pretty good and I can only see this dragging us down to NY or California levels at some point in the future by giving them a national voice in the matter.

I read about the camel's nose under the tent but looking for good talking points not really parables about camels and tents. Not sure they can relate to the Saudies



Any suggestions appreciated

[Skolnick]

A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away -- Ronald Reagan

With one election, a Congress and President may make it illegal to cross state lines with a weapon because they can -- and have -- done things like this ...

Title 18 U.S.C. §922(q)
(1) The Congress finds and declares that-
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves-even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.
(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone ...

Now change "school zone" to "shopping center", "highway", "park", "museum", "church", or "any thing that receives public funding".

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by LR2

I am looking for a convincing way to get my fellow gun group members to stop and think about it. They currently follow the NRA without any thought.

That is characteristic of many groups.

As for a brief and convincing argument, how about:

Originally Posted by LR2

Living in NC means we have it pretty good and I can only see this dragging us down to NY or California levels at some point in the future by giving them a national voice in the matter.

It's brief, plausible and has the benefit of being your own argument.

Originally Posted by LR2

I read about the camel's nose under the tent but looking for good talking points not really parables about camels and tents.

I would counsel you not to toss mere "talking points" at your friends. Other peoples' words may not fit you as well, and there are few things more persuasive to normal people than the genuine thoughts and sentiments of members of their own peer group.

[fredvon4]

skolnick

My initial thoughts...glad I did not have to write it all out.....thanks

I do often wonder if the decision makers actually have any idea of the impact of some potential decisions/rules/laws....As in taking good , law abiding, productive, tax paying citizens...who are all of a sudden Federal felons facing jail time and no longer promoting good interstate commerce, in fact costing the system (Taxpayers) the costs of finding, prosecuting, and incarcerating the new felons

Unfortunately...before I became jaded and learned my lessons...I tried to have good conversations with my elected (state/local) officials on some of these topics... too a man and women... I find generally they have no clear understanding of the Constitution

I am talking about face to face with, Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Cornyn, and Ted Cruz when they visited my county

In each case I can state THEY do not read and understand the Constitution as I do including my study of the 16 years of argument before ratification.....

IMO this dynamic will not change until we add some more Constitutional amendments...like term limits and forcing congress to be subjected 100% to the laws they legislate

OR we universality start replacing them locally..... never going to happen IMO

[OzeanJaeger]

U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 1
Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all Others

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

A state isn't allowed to outlaw automobiles and arrest everyone who enters their state in an automobile. They're not allowed to demand all drivers in their state poses their own state drivers license even though the qualifications for a license in their state may be different. They must honor the laws of the other states. Article 4, Section 1 makes it crystal clear that it is the proper role and legal function of The Federal Government to make sure that the idea of each state giving the full faith and credit of every other state. I don't care how much of a Federalist you are, or how much you believe in State's Rights, this is the proper and legal roll of the Federal Government. It is one of the primary reasons why it exists; to resolve differences and ensure that each state is treating the laws of the others in a constitutional manner. States like New Jermany that violate their citizen's rights, and violate the rights of citizens of other states, are directly in the cross hairs of Article 4, Section 1. A Federal Government that does not use legal force to make New Jersey give full faith and credit to the laws of the other 49 states is not doing it's legal duty and not being faithful to our Constitution.

This only goes one way. A Federal Government that restricts the rights and liberties of all the citizens of the States, and assumes power beyond it's enumerated powers, is already off the rails. Reality not withstanding their illegality does not relieve their legal duty.

So, it's kind of hard to point to the law when the ones in charge of enforcing the law are already corrupted completely. That said, this IS their role, and they refuse to do it. This is the correct, constitutional argument for reciprocity among the states. It is no different than any other Article 4, Section 1 issue. There is no violation of Federal Law involved, so there is no Supremacy Clause issue as their is in marijuana legalization.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by OzeanJaeger

..."Full Faith and Credit shall be given...."...

Sorry, but the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in the Constitution has nothing to do with this subject. I explained why in this post.

[FITASC]

How about because the US Government, in its quest to please all, comes up with a one-size fits all approach that fits no one? I am against plainly because I do not trust the Federal Government to do anything correctly, inexpensively, or without nasty consequences from all of the fine print that gets glossed over. Once you give up control to them, it WILL get changed as the regimes change.

[shootniron]

It is BAD to give government more authority...it can and will be used against you.

If they tell the states they must honor other state's permits...they can tell the states they must not honor other state's permits. That knife can cut both ways.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by L2R

I am looking for a convincing way to get my fellow gun group members to stop and think about it. They currently follow the NRA without any thought.

I'm sorry, I can't help you. I'm an active member of my state's largest and most influential pro-2A organization, and both the organization and I are 100 percent in favor of national reciprocity. You can claim we're following the NRA without any thought, but you'd be wrong to do so. The organization's board has given the question considerable attention, and I have given it careful consideration outside of both the state organization and the NRA. Without getting into a debate, I'll just say that I haven't yet seen any argument against it that made any sense.

[L2R]

quote: "You can claim we're following the NRA without any thought, but you'd be wrong to do so."

Good, we are in agreement because I did not say that. I did not say you or anyone here in this forum was following whatever the NRA promotes.

I did not say the NRA is often wrong is or usually wrong. I did not start this post to rehash this issue, there are other posts already here for that.

I have the ability this week end to have a one on one discussion with someone of influence and want to be prepared if it comes up.

But to say this a bit kinder, I will rephrase. For the last 10 years that I have known the leaders in my club , they endorses whatever the NRA promotes. There is no discussion and to do so may jeopardize my membership. Great people but set in the ways that have served them many years. They do not have an open forum to discuss things, they just state how it is without discussion with the expectation that we follow their lead. I wish we could have a discussion, who knows, they might enlighten me but I am not a sheep and wish we could have a more open forum in the future to hear all sides.

[silverbullet6oh]

Originally Posted by L2R

..................................
But to say this a bit kinder, I will rephrase. For the last 10 years that I have known the leaders in my club , they endorses whatever the NRA promotes. There is no discussion and to do so may jeopardize my membership. Great people but set in the ways that have served them many years. They do not have an open forum to discuss things, they just state how it is without discussion with the expectation that we follow their lead. I wish we could have a discussion, who knows, they might enlighten me but I am not a sheep and wish we could have a more open forum in the future to hear all sides.

Sounds like our nations politicians .....

I can appreciate the fact that you don't want to be a sheep. IMO, I don't think you would be considered being a sheep if you went along with this one. Maybe some of the other issues that have come up before with the NRA.

Just remember that the NRA, whether some like them or not, do have have more political power than just us gun owners.

- P

[Theohazard]

I'm solidly against national reciprocity legislation. Currently, those of us in states with excellent carry laws have very little interference from the federal government regarding our daily carry. But federal legislation usually involves compromise. What if a compromise for a national reciprocity bill involves further restrictions on what and where I can carry? Right now I can carry any handgun virtually everywhere I go, and businesses have no ability to post signs making me a criminal if I concealed carry on their property. I want to keep it that way.

A national reciprocity bill would very possibly end up including more national restrictions on carry rules. And if it didn't, it's very possible that there would be future restrictions enacted as a backlash. Many of us have it very good now, and we don't want to see the federal government get involved and potentially make our good carry laws worse.

[mcb66]

De facto registration? If they know who you are and that you have a weapon, does it really matter how many?

[Harry J]

Michigan has 39 states that honor its CPL. Michigan honors all 50 states resident CPL. The chances of me going to the states that don't honor Michigan CPL is slim. The Fed should stay out of it. Things are running pretty smooth already.

[FITASC]

I'm solidly against national reciprocity legislation. Currently, those of us in states with excellent carry laws have very little interference from the federal government regarding our daily carry. But federal legislation usually involves compromise. What if a compromise for a national reciprocity bill involves further restrictions on what and where I can carry? Right now I can carry any handgun virtually everywhere I go, and businesses have no ability to post signs making me a criminal if I concealed carry on their property. I want to keep it that way.

A national reciprocity bill would very possibly end up including more national restrictions on carry rules. And if it didn't, it's very possible that there would be future restrictions enacted as a backlash. Many of us have it very good now, and we don't want to see the federal government get involved and potentially make our good carry laws worse.

NAILED it. +however many

It seems from these threads on various forums, that the main proponents of reciprocity live in states with restrictive or non-existent carry laws and are hoping to gain some with this. Those of us who live in states that are very free on this issue fear that the heavily compromised legislation will force us to give up more than we could ever gain, and that once the Feds are involved, one regime change and registration, restriction and confiscation are just around the corner. I do NOT want to this dominated by NY, NJ, HI, MA, CT, RI, CA - and with the number of lawmakers they have, their way WILL be the deciding factor.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by FITASC

NAILED it. +however many

It seems from these threads on various forums, that the main proponents of reciprocity live in states with restrictive or non-existent carry laws and are hoping to gain some with this. Those of us who live in states that are very free on this issue fear that the heavily compromised legislation will force us to give up more than we could ever gain, and that once the Feds are involved, one regime change and registration, restriction and confiscation are just around the corner. I do NOT want to this dominated by NY, NJ, HI, MA, CT, RI, CA - and with the number of lawmakers they have, their way WILL be the deciding factor.

Exactly. If not careful, these anti-gun states might push for national standards for owning and/or carrying firearms. I'm surprised they haven't latched onto the National Reciprocity already as a vehicle for national gun control. They could blackmail states into compliance with things like Federal funding.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by L2R

For the last 10 years that I have known the leaders in my club , they endorses whatever the NRA promotes. There is no discussion and to do so may jeopardize my membership. Great people but set in the ways that have served them many years. They do not have an open forum to discuss things, they just state how it is without discussion with the expectation that we follow their lead. I wish we could have a discussion, who knows, they might enlighten me but I am not a sheep and wish we could have a more open forum in the future to hear all sides.

I wouldn't belong to a club like that which doesn't allow discussion/debate. Only people or organizations with a weak position try and squelch discussion/debate. I am not berating you for still belonging to the club, but I would have left and given them the reason why before departing.

[L2R]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

I wouldn't belong to a club like that which doesn't allow discussion/debate. Only people or organizations with a weak position try and squelch discussion/debate. I am not berating you for still belonging to the club, but I would have left and given them the reason why before departing.

there are many things I like about the club. Lots of good people and a nice place not far from home. They do a lot of things right. I try to stay out of the politics and while I have no other choice around here to shoot, I suspect I would not totally agree with everything done somewhere else.

[zukiphile]

there are many things I like about the club. Lots of good people and a nice place not far from home. They do a lot of things right. I try to stay out of the politics and while I have no other choice around here to shoot, I suspect I would not totally agree with everything done somewhere else.

Shutting up when your opinion doesn't matter is an under-appreciated skill.

In some groups, ones amongst whom I've shot, the expression of positions isn't about ideas. It may be about group identity or asserting social position within the group. This doesn't make them bad people, but it may mean that they don't enjoy examining ideas dispassionately.

If you think that these people aren't able to weigh the matters you would have them consider, but you generally enjoy their company, there may be very little real point in arguing the matter.

[625TC]

Quote:
I'm solidly against national reciprocity legislation. Currently, those of us in states with excellent carry laws have very little interference from the federal government regarding our daily carry. But federal legislation usually involves compromise. What if a compromise for a national reciprocity bill involves further restrictions on what and where I can carry? Right now I can carry any handgun virtually everywhere I go, and businesses have no ability to post signs making me a criminal if I concealed carry on their property. I want to keep it that way.

A national reciprocity bill would very possibly end up including more national restrictions on carry rules. And if it didn't, it's very possible that there would be future restrictions enacted as a backlash. Many of us have it very good now, and we don't want to see the federal government get involved and potentially make our good carry laws worse.

NAILED it. +however many

It seems from these threads on various forums, that the main proponents of reciprocity live in states with restrictive or non-existent carry laws and are hoping to gain some with this. Those of us who live in states that are very free on this issue fear that the heavily compromised legislation will force us to give up more than we could ever gain, and that once the Feds are involved, one regime change and registration, restriction and confiscation are just around the corner. I do NOT want to this dominated by NY, NJ, HI, MA, CT, RI, CA - and with the number of lawmakers they have, their way WILL be the deciding factor


exactly

[FITASC]

Shutting up when your opinion doesn't matter is an under-appreciated skill.

A smart man knows the answer and what to say; the wise man knows whether to say anything at all......

[L2R]

Originally Posted by FITASC

A smart man knows the answer and what to say; the wise man knows whether to say anything at all......

You might be right and I may or may not say anything. But if we are to follow this pattern within our own group (not speak up to offer a different view) then how will we ever convince those who are on the fence about guns rights in general? Are we to stay quiet while the rest of the media and politicians keep broadcasting their anti-gun views?

This is getting off topic, I did not ask whether I should say something but rather how to better point out another view. I can decide at the time if it is appropriate however, I really do appreciate all the advice. I do know that if no one wants to hear it, it is pointless. I only wanted to be prepared if it came up and seemed appropriate.

thank you all, it is ALL good advise and I do appreciate each post.

[Troy800]

I want my federal goverment to have minimal control over me. It should be decided at the states level. I dont want representatives from 49 other states having control over my state.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by Skolnick

With one election, a Congress and President may make it illegal to cross state lines with a weapon

That's not an argument against reciprocity, because reciprocity is not a prerequisite to passing such a law.

[FITASC]

I want my federal goverment to have minimal control over me. It should be decided at the states level. I dont want representatives from 49 other states having control over my state.

Another good point for the OP to use.