National Reciprocity is Dead

[steve4102]

There are two bills before the House, HR 2909 the DC Personal Protection Act and HR 38 Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

According to Rep Tom Massie, both of theses Bill are dead in the water as House Speaker will not allow them to move forward.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/09/rya...#axzz4sT09BF2w

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...=589266&page=3

There is a similar discussion here. However, since reciprocity is different from the nuances of the suppressors law - let's keep this discussion on reciprocity.

I agree that pro-gun laws are dead for the foreseeable future.

[johnwilliamson062]

Well, at least things aren't going backwards.

Not that I support national reciprocity in the first place.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

I never understood the people who don't support national reciprocity in the first place, because of states' rights. Because you can't claim states' rights on reciprocity while at the same time asserting that the 2nd Amendment is binding on the states. Those are contradictory positions.

[zukiphile]

I never understood the people who don't support national reciprocity in the first place, because of states' rights. Because you can't claim states' rights on reciprocity while at the same time asserting that the 2nd Amendment is binding on the states. Those are contradictory positions.

One can, without contradiction, believe that an incorporated right described in the 2d Am. can be regulated by a state to one degree or another, but that states retain the power to engage in some degree of their own regulation, and that a federally enforced reciprocity is a diminution of that valid state power.

Effectively forced reciprocity involves the federal government telling each state how it will exercise its police power. If states have any real sovereignty and aren't mere administrative units of a central government, then states must be permitted to exercise those powers.

Given the abuse state sovereignty has suffered, complaining about ccw forced reciprocity seems a bit like complaining that they didn't let you take your pedometer on your forced march to Bataan; in the scheme of things, it seems footnote-ish.

[Hanshi]

National reciprocity makes sense; it helps keep room in the prisons for TRUE criminals.

Seriously, it's beneficial to all lawful gun owners. And why should we give up our right to defend ourselves just because we cross a state line? I'm a former cop and can see this both ways.

[carguychris]

The issue isn't simply states' rights in and of themselves. The underlying issue is whether national reciprocity would give the Feds an opening to dictate national carry standards. Even if currently-proposed reciprocity bills don't give them much leverage, it's hard to predict what will happen once the bill hits the Senate floor, and after it passes and the executive branch gets their foot in the door.

Also, the states' rights issue isn't confined to the abstract question of whether it's fair for the Feds to dictate what states can do; there's also a pragmatic angle. Anti-gun states will pull out all the stops to prevent out-of-state licensees from carrying within their borders. Recall that we don't yet have a SCOTUS decision upholding shall-issue CCW; they keep punting by refusing to hear appeals, and there's not a solid and unwavering pro-2A majority in the court. The matter may be tied up in the courts for years, negating any short-term benefit for us, or it may be resolved in an adverse way.

[Grizz12]

One can, without contradiction, believe that an incorporated right described in the 2d Am. can be regulated by a state to one degree or another, but that states retain the power to engage in some degree of their own regulation, and that a federally enforced reciprocity is a diminution of that valid state power.

Effectively forced reciprocity involves the federal government telling each state how it will exercise its police power. If states have any real sovereignty and aren't mere administrative units of a central government, then states must be permitted to exercise those powers.

Given the abuse state sovereignty has suffered, complaining about ccw forced reciprocity seems a bit like complaining that they didn't let you take your pedometer on your forced march to Bataan; in the scheme of things, it seems footnote-ish.

Why should the 2A change from state to state but none of our other Rights are infringed on from state to state?

[zukiphile]

Why should the 2A change from state to state but none of our other Rights are infringed on from state to state?

Other rights are regulated or policed differently from state to state.

You have a right to travel; whether you have the right to drive at .09%BAC or at 75mph may change from state to state.

You have a right to due process in the taking of your property for imminent domain, but the purpose for which your property may be taken can vary from state to state.

You have a right to marry if you are single, but who you can marry has historically and largely been a matter of state regulation.

The full faith and credit doctrine has had a public policy exception, and one can reasonably argue that differences in ccw laws represent strong public policy differences.

Just to be clear, I'd like to see very liberal carry laws in every state, but the means can be as important as the end. As Carguychris suggests, if you are happy to have Congress dictate ccw policy within a state, that means they can issue federal prohibitions on carry too. If you live in Vermont, that's likely to be a bad deal.

[Grizz12]

Other rights are regulated or policed differently from state to state.

You have a right to travel; whether you have the right to drive at .09%BAC or at 75mph may change from state to state.

You have a right to due process in the taking of your property for imminent domain, but the purpose for which your property may be taken can vary from state to state.

You have a right to marry if you are single, but who you can marry has historically and largely been a matter of state regulation.

The full faith and credit doctrine has had a public policy exception, and one can reasonably argue that differences in ccw laws represent strong public policy differences.

Just to be clear, I'd like to see very liberal carry laws in every state, but the means can be as important as the end. As Carguychris suggests, if you are happy to have Congress dictate ccw policy within a state, that means they can issue federal prohibitions on carry too. If you live in Vermont, that's likely to be a bad deal.

NOTHING you mention is a Right in the Bill of Rights, maybe you should read it sometime

[zukiphile]

NOTHING you mention is a Right in the Bill of Rights, maybe you should read it sometime

Thanks. I've read the BOR, but not only the BOR.

The BOR is not an exhaustive list of fundamental rights. The right to marry and to travel are fundamental rights. The right to due process and compensation for takings are explicit constitutional rights.

[Grizz12]

Thanks. I've read the BOR, but not only the BOR.

The BOR is not an exhaustive list of fundamental rights. The right to marry and to travel are fundamental rights. The right to due process and compensation for takings are explicit constitutional rights.

There is No constitutional right to marry or travel, what are you talking about?

There is a right to due process but that has nothing to do with compensation.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Grizz12

...There is a right to due process but that has nothing to do with compensation.

Perhaps you should try reading the Bill of Rights. See the Fifth Amendment (emphasis added):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But the bottom line is the zukiphile is educated in and understands these matters. You, on the other hand, not so much.

Let's take a brief detour for a basic lesson in civics and the Constitution. (See also, Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer)

Our's is a federal system.

States are sovereign, political entities. At the time of the founding of our nation each State or Commonwealth effectively ceded some measure of sovereignty to join with the others to become the United States. How much sovereignty each would cede was a central issue in hashing out the Constitution. Our nation would not have come into existence had the States/Commonwealths not retained an acceptable degree of sovereignty.

A fundamental attribute of government is what's known as police power:

The inherent authority of a government to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order, and security.

The authority of States/Commonwealths is acknowledged (not conferred) by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

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.

Each State/Commonwealth has its own constitution as well. And since in the United States each State or Commonwealth has its own government in the form of a representative democracy, the people in each have the opportunity to influence what laws are adopted and how they are implemented.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1833 the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)). Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment the doctrine evolved of applying some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the States on a piecemeal basis. Thus those enumerated rights found applicable to the State have also become limiting factor on the exercise by States of their police power. But that doesn't necessarily require that laws be uniform from State to State.

So as zukiphile pointed out:

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Other rights are regulated or policed differently from state to state.

You have a right to travel; whether you have the right to drive at .09%BAC or at 75mph may change from state to state.

You have a right to due process in the taking of your property for imminent domain, but the purpose for which your property may be taken can vary from state to state.

You have a right to marry if you are single, but who you can marry has historically and largely been a matter of state regulation....

For another example we could look at rights protected by the First Amendment. There are no doubt different free speech laws in Montana and New York (and other States).So, for example, some laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges, even though such laws abridge rights protected by the First Amendment. Such laws are usually local. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning or late night hours.

Permit processes which have survived challenge have done because they were found by a court to be acceptable under the First Amendment, and there is a fairly extensive body of law defining the attributes of a permit process which will be acceptable under the First Amendment. But permit systems within such constraints can, and certainly will, still vary from place to place. See, for example:

• Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:

  ...We are likewise persuaded that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to serve those interests and that it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. As we have emphasized on more than one occasion, when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement...

  • Cf. McCullen v. Coakley (U. S. Supreme Court, No. 12–1168, 2014)
    
    
  • In McCullen the Court struck down a new Massachusetts "buffer zone" law. As noted in the opinion the Court had previously sustained a different sort of buffer zone law in Colorado, and nothing in McCullen casts any doubt on the continued validity of the Colorado law (McCullen, slip opinion at 2):

    ….The statute [the prior Massachusetts law] was modeled on a similar Colorado law that this Court had upheld in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703 (2000). Relying on Hill, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sustained the Massachusetts statute against a First Amendment challenge. McGuire v. Reilly, 386 F. 3d 45 (2004) (McGuire II), cert. denied, 544 U. S. 974 (2005); McGuire v. Reilly, 260 F. 3d 36 (2001) (McGuire I).
    
    By 2007, some Massachusetts legislators and law enforcement officials had come to regard the 2000 statute as inadequate.....

  
  
• Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:

  ...A narrowly-tailored permitting regulation need not be the least restrictive means of furthering a locality's asserted interests. The regulation may not, however, burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals. See United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1999). "[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied `so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985))...

[brian33x51]

I agree that allowing the federal government to step in at this point, even if it is for good, would open the door for some serious abuse later by another wannabe tyrant. But we as a people absolutely need some way to stop all this disarming madness from spreading.

[CowTowner]

As has been said before, this is one camel whose nose we don't want to get under the tent. National reciprocity by federal law is not the way to go.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by CowTowner

As has been said before, this is one camel whose nose we don't want to get under the tent. National reciprocity by federal law is not the way to go.

I don't disagree, but I also confess a visceral sympathy for the sentiment frequently expressed on the issue:

Originally Posted by brian33x51

I agree that allowing the federal government to step in at this point, even if it is for good, would open the door for some serious abuse later by another wannabe tyrant. But we as a people absolutely need some way to stop all this disarming madness from spreading.

To expand on the metaphor, lots of that camel is already inside the tent and we are discussing whether the nose should be in as well. Keeping that nose outside the tent seems a trivial victory, and even then one only in principle.

The problem is that if you forego these smaller issues of principle, you won't have a shot at making them count when it does matter. Renquist made a bit of a personal project out of reviving the commerce clause after some had grown used to ignoring it; that project led to some congressional acts being struck. I don't relish chigacoans being poorly treated or poorly served by their elected government, but if our organising principles don't matter even fewer of our rights will matter.

[FITASC]

If the reciprocity laws were to be written by the leaders of NYC, DC, San Francisco, and similar liberal groups, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[johnwilliamson062]

Any expansion of regulation one way or the other expands power at a national level. In ten years the pendulum might swing back and if you have national reciprocity having been supported and accepted as constitutional for 10 years it is not going to be easy to fight a national ban. State by state at least the moving box is reserved.

In the case of NHPA the federal governments right to legislate the issue is already accepted.

[langenc]

The most abused amendment is the last 10th,, Read it,,haha.

[Danoobie]

I apologize in advance, so ban me if this is inappropriate,
but didn't Paul Ryan just piss away 20 years blathering
about how he is "The servant of the little man!", just to
sell out, at his first real big chance to prove himself?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...l-carry-242988

Mentioned this in another thread. Senate won't do it. Standards are a problem.

[Metal god]

You guys seem to be nibbling around the edges and not actually thinking this through , although you believe you are . Sure each state has different driving restrictions , but I can still drive in them . Sure each state has slightly different free speech laws , but I can still speak in them . I can go on and on .

People from TX , AZ , NV etc can carry in those states . Why can't they in CA ? All those same people can drive and speak in CA so what's different about the right to bare arms ?

[FITASC]

different about the right to bare arms ?

Those same folks can easily wear T shirts or "wife beaters" without penalty. However, BEARing arms is a different matter. As the lawyers here will tell you, even a comma out of place can become an issue; spelling does count...........

In NV you can drive at one speed that you can't in CA; same for UT and other states - so why can't they drive 75 in LA?.....

[Metal god]

How fast they can drive is irrelevant the point is you can still drive in LA !!!! I had no idea if I misspelled bear ( which I always do ) the whole point then becomes completely lost . FWIW this is not a court of law . This is a few gun guys talking on a "general" forum so a "," can be out of place as long as we explain and or correct what we meant . Conversations are fluid and sometimes things need to be corrected or better articulated later in the conversation .

The over all point is Reciprocity is ok for drivers lic and marriage as well as other things . Why not to bear arms . Clearly marriage need not have any standards . Can't you marry your 13 year old cuisine in some states ?

[Frank Ettin]

....People from TX , AZ , NV etc can carry in those states . Why can't they in CA ? All those same people can drive and speak in CA so what's different about the right to bare arms ?

With regard to carry permits, various States have decided unilaterally to recognize permits issued by other States, or some States have entered into carry reciprocity agreements. With regard to driver's licenses, all States have agreed among themselve to recognize the driver's licenses of other States.

In any case, these were things decided upon and undertaken independently by the States. These arrangements were not imposed on the States by federal legislation.

The core of the debate is not about carrying a gun or driving. It's about preserving what little is left of state sovereignty and not further expanding the power of the federal government.