Once more into the breach - universal reciprocity

[tirod]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-filed-senate/

And, we will see how far it gets - but it's brought up repeatedly and the margins keep getting closer.

Maybe this time.

[Sharkbite]

Can anybody imagine [Obama] not vetoing this if it get thru to his desk?

[ATN082268]

If it goes only as far as a Federal bill which makes concealed carry permits valid in any state, then I'm all for it. Unfortunately, if it passes, I'm sure there will be another Federal bill which will also pass that will end up raising the bar on concealed carry requirements for most states; And after that, it wouldn't surprise me if it expanded to a lot of other gun related things other than concealed carry. Basically, the universal reciprocity is a backdoor way to regulate guns a lot more than they are now...In the short term, it would be great for gun rights but not for the long term.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

If it goes only as far as a Federal bill which makes concealed carry permits valid in any state, then I'm all for it. Unfortunately, if it passes, I'm sure there will be another Federal bill which will also pass that will end up raising the bar on concealed carry requirements for most states; And after that, it wouldn't surprise me if it expanded to a lot of other gun related things other than concealed carry. Basically, the universal reciprocity is a backdoor way to regulate guns a lot more than they are now

You may be right, but I'm inclined to think that what you fear can't happen -- not as a result of a law that simply requires recognition of state-issued licenses/permits by other states. That much could (and should) be required simply for the reason that people in state 'A' are being deprived of a fundamental, constitutional right in states 'B', 'J', and 'Z.' Federal mandates for universal recognition is appropriate because it affected interstate commerce.

The issue of what the criteria are for the states is a matter of states rights. The infighting we're seeing in Illinois isn't a matter of the federales trying to dictate what the minimum criteria are or should be, it's a fight over whether or not Illinois is effectively making it too difficult to obtain a permit, and thus still depriving its citizens of their constitutional right.

Calling for universal recognition is very different from the federales issuing a national carry permit. If they were to do that (and I don't know if doing so would be legal), then I could see the feds also deciding what the minimum criteria are to qualify for said national permit.

[steve4102]

Has anyone seen the actual Bill?

I did the Google and came up empty.

EDIT:
found it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...bill/1908/text

Calling for universal recognition is very different from the federales issuing a national carry permit. If they were to do that (and I don't know if doing so would be legal), then I could see the feds also deciding what the minimum criteria are to qualify for said national permit.

I have my doubts about this.

Remember back during the "Energy Crisis", when the Feds demanded a 55 MPH max speed limit all across America. Some states refused to comply and were strong armed into submission by threats of cutting off Federal funding?

Remember when the Feds demanded that the Legal age to consume alcohol to be 21 all across America. Some States refused to comply and were again forced to comply with funding threats again.

I see the door open here for the same kind of abuse by our Federal Government.

[jimbob86]

I see the door open here for the same kind of abuse by our Federal Government.

This.

The less the Feds say about guns, the happier I'll be. I can always just not go to New York or Chicago. Folks in Jersey can always vote with their feet. If the Feds get to decide that my CHP is not good enough, then I'm not going to be happy.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

Can anybody imagine [Obama] not vetoing this if it get thru to his desk?

I sure can't. Maybe they attach it to something else, but even then I see him vetoing it.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

I can always just not go to New York or Chicago.

The law in Chicago is the same as the rest of the state, there is full state preemption on all laws regarding handguns and handgun ammunition.

And unless the reciprocity bill includes a section giving a Federal agency the power to regulate carrying of firearms it can't be done short of passing another law. And a reciprocity bill doesn't bring us any closer to such a law.

[carguychris]

As I wrote in a past thread on this topic, the very idea of a minimum nationwide federal concealed-carry standard scares me so silly that I can't bring myself to support national reciprocity.

I could only bring myself to support the idea if the Feds were to leave the current state-controlled reciprocity system completely untouched and superimpose a tiered national licensing standard over it; however, I don't see this happening in the current political climate.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

carguychris, doesn't a national licensing standard do just what you are opposed to?

The current Senate bill is endorsed by the NRA and simply allows for reciprocity, exactly like driver's licenses. It doesn't include a federal license or introduce any federal licensing standards.

[steve4102]

simply allows for reciprocity, exactly like driver's licenses

Cept the Federal Government has nothing to do with DL reciprocity. The States did that all on their own.

[jimbob86]

The law in Chicago is the same as the rest of the state, there is full state preemption on all laws regarding handguns and handgun ammunition.

And unless the reciprocity bill includes a section giving a Federal agency the power to regulate carrying of firearms it can't be done short of passing another law. And a reciprocity bill doesn't bring us any closer to such a law.

OK..... I can just not go to Illinois or New York. Neither recognizes my Nebraska CHP, so I will not visit. I avoid even passing through, if possible.

When you all get that fixed, maybe I'll take I-80 to the east coast again.

As for "It's endorsed by the NRA!" ..... It was not too many years back the NRA was cool with then State Senator Brad Ashford's Legislative bill that would have outlawed possession of AK's, AR's and anything else deemed by an un-elected panel as "Too Dangerous For Civilian Ownership". The NRA's stamp of approval means jack squat to me now. I can not and will not forget that. Ever.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Armed_Chicagoan

carguychris, doesn't a national licensing standard do just what you are opposed to?

To reiterate my earlier argument, the idea would be to adopt a tiered system under which all existing state CHL's would automatically become a lower-tier license- a Class 2, Type B, or whatever- and the Feds would leave the lower tier completely alone, thus preserving the existing reciprocity system. The top-tier (Class 1, Type A, whatever) would be the universal, works-anywhere license that would meet some sort of federal standard.

This would remove the impetus for restrictive states to attack lawful CCW in general just to stop people from states with lower licensing standards from carrying in their state.

I find this idea to be shockingly reasonable, but each side is so well-entrenched that I doubt such a system is likely to be implemented.

[thallub]

Thankfully this bill, S.498, stands a three percent chance of being enacted into law.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s498

[JN01]

If Congress wanted to pass legislation to dictate (or coerce) some sort of uniform standards for concealed carry, why would they first need universal reciprocity in order to do so? I realize that there are states rights issues involved, but that rarely stops them if it something they are determined to enact.

[Tom Servo]

As for "It's endorsed by the NRA!" ....

Eh, why not? It's pretty easy politics to support it. As it is, I just don't see it happening.

When politicians in vote-heavy states like California, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey get a look at the bill, they're going to oppose it. They don't want their "strong" gun-control laws being flaunted by a bunch of unwashed out-of-towners trampling around with guns.

Failing that, they'll do their best to poison it with unworkable provisions.

A better approach will be getting court decisions asserting a right to carry outside the home, then challenging bad carry laws state by state.

[Cnon]

Tom Said: Eh, why not? It's pretty easy politics to support it. As it is, I just don't see it happening.

When politicians in vote-heavy states like California, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey get a look at the bill, they're going to oppose it. They don't want their "strong" gun-control laws being flaunted by a bunch of unwashed out-of-towners trampling around with guns.

Failing that, they'll do their best to poison it with unworkable provisions.

A better approach will be getting court decisions asserting a right to carry outside the home, then challenging bad carry laws state by state.

I couldn't agree more, Tom!


Cnon

[steve4102]

A better approach will be getting court decisions asserting a right to carry outside the home, then challenging bad carry laws state by state.

True, but litigation cost money, a lot of money, bills don't and with the way some individual States are passing or proposing anti-gun bills and referendums like breading rabbits, the money available to fight in court is being spread pretty thin.

[Onward Allusion]

Armed_Chicagoan

The law in Chicago is the same as the rest of the state, there is full state preemption on all laws regarding handguns and handgun ammunition.

You are wrong. Municipalities have home-rule laws. The AWB, including mag capacity holds true in a number of cities/towns.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

You are wrong. Municipalities have home-rule laws. The AWB, including mag capacity holds true in a number of cities/towns.

AWBs apply only to long guns, the Illinois law is quite clear that state law preempts home rule wrt handguns:

430 ILCS 66/90

Sec. 90. Preemption. The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion thereof, enacted on or before the effective date of this Act that purports to impose regulations or restrictions on licensees or handguns and ammunition for handguns in a manner inconsistent with this Act shall be invalid in its application to licensees under this Act on the effective date of this Act. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

Bold emphasis mine. This also applies to anyone with a valid FOID per 430 ILCS 65/13.1 (e).

[JimDandy]

Does anyone not remember S.Amdt.719 to S.649 the post Sandy Hook gun control initiative in the Democrat controlled Senate was voted 57-43?

There are now 54 Republicans. Theoretically, four changed Nay (D) votes gets it passed. 11 gets it passed by a veto proof majority. (Because one (R) - Mark Kirk - from IL voted no) How many (D)'s - of the 13- in the Yea group are still there? Landrieu and Begich are gone for example. That leaves 10

[FITASC]

Do you REALLY want to have your CCW regulations set by the likes of CA, MD, NY, MA, and NJ?

I sure don't and that is EXACTLY what well happen. This belongs at the state level, not the federal level.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

What part of the bill enables CA, MD, NY, MA, and NJ to set the CCW regulations?

[Tom Servo]

What part of the bill enables CA, MD, NY, MA, and NJ to set the CCW regulations?

Any part representatives of those states can get their hands on. They'll do their best to sink it by adding unworkable or loathsome provisions.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Any part representatives of those states can get their hands on. They'll do their best to sink it by adding unworkable or loathsome provisions.

If they do that it won't pass anyway because it will be worthless.

My issue is people complaining about the bill as it is written now, and saying this somehow opens the door for federal restrictions on CC. I'm not seeing that, and I also don't see how a reciprocity bill is a prerequisite to the Feds regulating CC.