The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 22, 2017, 09:55 PM   #101
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 437
Not bad enough we have to fight gun banners all day everyday - we have to fight fuds over AR15's, property rights advocates over being able to keep a firearm in your own vehicle, and pre-civil war and marbury vs madison states rights advocates over national reciprocity.

Yeah national reciprocity kind of like a federal law stopping states banning free speech or banning rights for minorities or women - how awful.
mack59 is offline  
Old November 29, 2017, 08:52 AM   #102
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,909
It appears that National Reciprocity may be moving forward to a floor vote.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ng-floor-vote/
steve4102 is offline  
Old November 29, 2017, 09:33 AM   #103
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by mack59 View Post
Yeah national reciprocity kind of like a federal law stopping states banning free speech or banning rights for minorities or women - how awful.
If it were just a matter of jettisoning the draconian gun laws of the 10 or so anti-gun states, then I'd agree with you. I don't believe it will turn out that way though. If National Reciprocity passes, I suspect the remaining 40 or so pro-gun states will have more restrictive gun laws as there will likely be some uniform standard for buying, carrying, etc. guns/ammo. If that is the case, your analogy won't be correct as the majority will have their rights curtailed and the minority will have their rights enhanced.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old November 29, 2017, 10:10 PM   #104
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,428
National reciprocity is getting a floor vote in the House. We'll see if it goes anywhere in the Senate.

On another note, the worst possible RKBA bill moves forward. The SHARE Act even with the Hearing Protection Act stripped out would be a much bigger win for gun owners. Instead, we get a (potential) small short term win that lets the Feds put down roots in CHL accreditation. The only unforeseen aspect of that is whether it will be the Dems or GOP who slip the knife in.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 30, 2017, 07:08 AM   #105
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,080
A can of worms that should never be opened. Tell me one thing the government has done that they have NOT SCREWED UP ????? What comes as a result of this that the majority of us do not need?? Registration?? States have registration in place. Which in my opinion gives the nit-whits in DC a way to get their hands up my kiester and the opening for confiscation when the time is right
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old November 30, 2017, 08:49 AM   #106
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR
National reciprocity is getting a floor vote in the House. We'll see if it goes anywhere in the Senate.

On another note, the worst possible RKBA bill moves forward. The SHARE Act even with the Hearing Protection Act stripped out would be a much bigger win for gun owners. Instead, we get a (potential) small short term win that lets the Feds put down roots in CHL accreditation. The only unforeseen aspect of that is whether it will be the Dems or GOP who slip the knife in.
One can hope. Democrat office holders also have constituents who may not all think strategically.

I question whether federally mandated reciprocity will be a short term win.

If this were to pass, it would almost certainly face an immediate challenge. If the challenge is successful, we will have a NY or CA case over-turning it. Despite what the decision may say, it will be popularly greeted as a partial roll-back of Heller. (Do we think Clarence Thomas would see this regulation of intrastate activity as authorized by the commerce clause?).

If it survives challenge it produces precedent for the proposition that intrastate carry is a matter of federal regulation, which has to be the very opposite of the meaning of the text of the 2d Am. It will do for liberal carry laws in most states what Obergafell did for state marriage laws.
zukiphile is offline  
Old November 30, 2017, 02:58 PM   #107
rburch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 750
Quote:
If it were just a matter of jettisoning the draconian gun laws of the 10 or so anti-gun states, then I'd agree with you. I don't believe it will turn out that way though. If National Reciprocity passes, I suspect the remaining 40 or so pro-gun states will have more restrictive gun laws as there will likely be some uniform standard for buying, carrying, etc. guns/ammo. If that is the case, your analogy won't be correct as the majority will have their rights curtailed and the minority will have their rights enhanced.
Yet nothing remotely like your scenario is in the bill.

The bill specifically avoids setting any standards for buying, carrying, etc.

It literally says that if a state issues Concealed carry permits, or has Constitutional carry, then it has allow anyone who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry concealed.

The methods of carry, types of guns allowed, mag capacity, places you can't carry, etc. Are all still set by each state.

The only area even close is that it prohibits states from banning carry on many federal lands.

So no matter how many times people say it I still can't see how this Bill as written does anything to undermine Gun Rights, or CCW.

Yes it could be changed to do so, but if your basis for opposition is that it might be changed, then you have to oppose every single bill no matter what.
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
rburch is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 12:25 AM   #108
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
Quote:
JERRYS. does anyone really want the federal government involved in your carry right? petition your state reps for reciprocity with other states.
California has not and will never grant reciprocity to ANY other state. The powers that be have decided that fewer guns=fewer gun crimes. Which is why it is so hard to get a CCW in large urban areas, and why the state legislature is doing everything it can to ban as many guns as it can.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 04:55 AM   #109
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 274
IMO, I do not believe National Reciprocity would survive in the courts. You can bet your butt that IF it manages to pass both the House and Senate and get signed into law by President Trump, that immediately the anti-gun states and cities will all file suit against it. And given how these various courts and judges have no problem blatantly violating the Heller decision and the Constitution period in upholding these various crazy "Assault Weapons" Bans, I have no doubt that they would do the exact same thing in refusing to uphold National Reciprocity. And then the Supreme Court would probably decline to hear the case, and we'd be back to square one.
LogicMan is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 05:53 AM   #110
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,918
be just like everything else they oppose - lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, with leftist federal judge after leftist federal judge putting a "hold" on the law forever. I still want the SHARE Act to go through, but I think it may be dead forever as well.
armoredman is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 06:51 AM   #111
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by rburch
Yet nothing remotely like your scenario is in the bill.

The bill specifically avoids setting any standards for buying, carrying, etc.

It literally says that if a state issues Concealed carry permits, or has Constitutional carry, then it has allow anyone who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry concealed.

The methods of carry, types of guns allowed, mag capacity, places you can't carry, etc. Are all still set by each state.
***
As you've described it, Who carries isn't set by the state, but Congress. If Congress can grant a right to carry over the laws of a state, it can revoke that right over the laws of a state.

State laws are generally getting more liberal. Congress is the body that decided that for a decade you shouldn't be able to buy a new rifle with a bayonet lug, flash suppressor and 11 round magazine.

When you federalize a matter, like carry within a state, you make an all or nothing bet that Congress won't turn on you at their convenience.

Last edited by zukiphile; December 1, 2017 at 09:33 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 10:24 AM   #112
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Quote:
If Congress can grant a right to carry over the laws of a state, it can revoke that right over the laws of a state.
They already can do this as we saw with the AWB and NFA- the right to have certain weapons and configurations were and are strictly controlled.

Some states have more liberal gun laws and some are increasing controls. The issue is whether a federal law that instantiates should be considered protected under the BOR will be passed.

The states rights issue is an old one. Lest we forget that argument was used to allow states to institute racially based tyrannies. Federal action broke those.

I do not see why well crafted Federal legislation cannot break the unconstitutional actions of the states in a similar manner.

Of course, it could go bad. What if the Feds instituted a law that only property owners of a certain level could vote? Oh, wait.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 10:26 AM   #113
rburch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 750
Quote:
As you've described it, Who carries isn't set by the state, but Congress. If Congress can grant a right to carry over the laws of a state, it can revoke that right over the laws of a state.

State laws are generally getting more liberal. Congress is the body that decided that for a decade you shouldn't be able to buy a new rifle with a bayonet lug, flash suppressor and 11 round magazine.

When you federalize a matter, like carry within a state, you make an all or nothing bet that Congress won't turn on you at their convenience.
Except they don't decide who carries. Each state still decides the permitting requirements for the people living in their state.

You say state laws are getting liberal, but this bill if passed will mean I can drive the faster way home from work without committing 54 felonies because a less than 1 mile section of road is randomly determined to be in another state.
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
rburch is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 10:38 AM   #114
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by rburch
Quote:
As you've described it, Who carries isn't set by the state, but Congress. If Congress can grant a right to carry over the laws of a state, it can revoke that right over the laws of a state.

State laws are generally getting more liberal. Congress is the body that decided that for a decade you shouldn't be able to buy a new rifle with a bayonet lug, flash suppressor and 11 round magazine.

When you federalize a matter, like carry within a state, you make an all or nothing bet that Congress won't turn on you at their convenience.
Except they don't decide who carries. Each state still decides the permitting requirements for the people living in their state.
For the people living outside their state, the federal government enforces different rules if federally mandated reciprocity is the rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rburch
You say state laws are getting liberal, but this bill if passed will mean I can drive the faster way home from work without committing 54 felonies because a less than 1 mile section of road is randomly determined to be in another state.
State laws are getting more liberal, yet are not uniformly as liberal as they should be. Its outrageous that a state would make it a felony for you to carry, but how that is fixed matters.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 11:03 AM   #115
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
Quote:
If Congress can grant a right to carry over the laws of a state, it can revoke that right over the laws of a state.
They already can do this as we saw with the AWB and NFA- the right to have certain weapons and configurations were and are strictly controlled.
Neither the NFA nor AWB were carry restrictions. The NFA is a taxing provision and the AWB was a restriction on new sales; FFLs were still permitted to transfer items that were prohibited for new sale under the AWB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
The states rights issue is an old one. Lest we forget that argument was used to allow states to institute racially based tyrannies. Federal action broke those.
You aren't obligated to value federalism or any of the structure of rights and powers described in the COTUS. It does place one in a uniquely poor position to argue the protections of the 2d Am. to also argue that its structures are mere antiques to be associated with racism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
I do not see why well crafted Federal legislation cannot break the unconstitutional actions of the states in a similar manner.
In order for it to work in a similar manner, you will need any restriction on the possession and carry of arms to be subjected to strict scrutiny by the courts. In the absence of the certainty of application of that doctrine, federalization of intrastate carry gives the representatives of NY, CA, HI and NJ a voice in the carry policy of KY, VT, GA, OH and TX. It doesn't require superhuman foresight to foresee a future Congress manifesting its hostility to the right through legislation pertaining to carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer
Of course, it could go bad. What if the Feds instituted a law that only property owners of a certain level could vote? Oh, wait.
Glenn, understanding why federalizing the issue could open the door for Congress to make it "go bad" isn't a small part of the point.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 02:14 PM   #116
rburch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 750
Quote:
federalization of intrastate carry gives the representatives of NY, CA, HI and NJ a voice in the carry policy of KY, VT, GA, OH and TX. It doesn't require superhuman foresight to foresee a future Congress manifesting its hostility to the right through legislation pertaining to carry.
How does it give them a voice they don't already have?

They could propose a law that requires training and federal background checks for CCW now at any time.

How does passing this law somehow give them the ability to do something they can already do?
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
rburch is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 02:53 PM   #117
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 437
Materially this law would be a huge step towards allowing carry in restricted states - with people visiting being able to carry those states politicians would be put in the position of defending restrictive issue carry laws on their own citizens that don't apply to visitors from out of state. A difficult position to defend. One that would open the door to pushing through shall issue in some if not all of those states.

As per previously stated, passage of this law would not give the federal government any power that it already couldn't exercise at anytime by passing restrictive gun laws - they already historically have and they can/could at anytime in the future. This reciprocity law sets no precedents.

As per this law being the subject of lawsuits from the states - so what - what difference does that make - all federal laws are so subject.
mack59 is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 03:03 PM   #118
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by rburch
They could propose a law that requires training and federal background checks for CCW now at any time.

How does passing this law somehow give them the ability to do something they can already do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mack59
As per previously stated, passage of this law would not give the federal government any power that it already couldn't exercise at anytime by passing restrictive gun laws - they already historically have and they can/could at anytime in the future. This reciprocity law sets no precedents.
Can either of you cite a single federal restriction on purely intrastate carry (i.e. carry entirely within a state and not involving federal agents or lands and not involved in interstate commerce)?

If you can't, why do you think that is?
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 06:03 PM   #119
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,704
Quote:
As per previously stated, passage of this law would not give the federal government any power that it already couldn't exercise at anytime by passing restrictive gun laws
I don't see it that way. Look at all previous Federal gun laws. They don't require the states to do anything. This one, does.

Ok, you can consider it "federal mandate, lite" but its still a federal mandate on state actions.

Consider for a moment the other side of the issue. States rights. And please, don't think states shouldn't have rights, or that their rights don't matter because you (or I) happen to disagree with them.

You want to carry everywhere, for personal protection, I get that. But, how does your desire (not right) play out when you go to your neighbors home?

You don't get to decide if you can carry there, THEY DO. Its their property.

If your argument for wanting the Fed to force states to allow you to carry is the "shall not be infringed" part of the Constitution, I agree, in general principle, but to have the moral high ground to make that claim, you'd better get all the FEDERAL infringement repealed first. And not just NFA34, GCA 68 and the others but including restriction on carry on Federal property. Courthouses, Federal buildings, etc. And GUN FREE ZONES at schools, airports, etc.

I'm afraid all I see in this issue is a very small, but very vocal minority risking having the rest of us live under increased restriction of our firearms rights, so their lives will be a little easier. And, that's if they WIN...

I grew up in a very restrictive state. I live in a much less restrictive state now, and I simply do not want more restrictions on my life, in order that you can feel better about yours. I get it, that you want to have a level playing field. We SHOULD have one, we should have kept the one we made in the 1790s.

We didn't. And today, because we didn't then, we can't now, not without raising the restrictions on those who have none or few, in order to convince those who have many to accept fewer.

I don't have a dog in this fight, in once sense, since I don't travel to restrictive states. But I do have a dog in this fight in the sense that any FEDERAL action will affect me and mine.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 1, 2017, 11:14 PM   #120
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 437
It was once a states rights issue that blacks were property and women couldn't vote. Heller recognized the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right and McDonald incorporated that right to the states.

Ensuring that people may exercise their inalienable rights is at the core of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Individual rights should supersede government powers of the federal or state government.

Much like the federal government had to step in to ensure the rights of blacks and women earlier in this past century it is necessary that it do so in states that restrict the inalienable rights of citizens in states that deny their exercise.

The national reciprocity act is a minimal intrusion to help the exercise of the right to carry - not requiring a state to issue a carry license, not defining a states carry laws as to where or when or how one may legally carry - except to say that if carry is legal then individuals who are licensed to carry in another state may carry in that state subject to that states restrictions on manner, time, and place.

Of course no prior federal carry legislation has been passed as the 2nd wasn't formally acknowledged as an individual right applicable to the states until Heller and McDonald recently.

Federal law seems to have had no problem in the least in the past regulating private possession or ownership of firearms even if not in commerce. During the assault weapons ban me taking my own rifle and altering it with a group of modifications or a modification that created a so called assault weapon was a crime as was modifying a magazine to take more than 10 rounds.
mack59 is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 12:42 AM   #121
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,704
Quote:
It was once a states rights issue that blacks were property and women couldn't vote.
Agreed. It was, at the time, the established law of the land, and all the states agreed on it.

Later, that changed. Later still, the law was changed.

Quote:
Ensuring that people may exercise their inalienable rights is at the core of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Individual rights should supersede government powers of the federal or state government.
agreed, this is the ideal, what the Founders wanted for posterity. We don't quite have that today, and haven't for sometime, but its still the ideal.

Quote:
Much like the federal government had to step in to ensure the rights of blacks and women earlier in this past century it is necessary that it do so in states that restrict the inalienable rights of citizens in states that deny their exercise.
While there are similarities, I think there are significant differences in the circumstances between the reciprocity issue under discussion and the issues of slavery, and denial of civil rights to blacks and women in certain states where the Federal govt did wind up stepping in.

HOW significant the differences are is worthy of discussion, I think, because we do need to see that there are differences between what the situation is today, with this issue and what went on in the past with those issues.

First off, those people in the past who suffered their rights denied were having that happen in the state of residence. At home. BY their own state govt. Also the mistreatment was being done to them because of who they were. Not because of something they wanted to do. I think this is something significantly different than not recognizing another state's permit.

I agree there are some of the same principles at work, but they are far from identical situations.

I'm going to use NY as the representative of the restrictive states, in general, recognizing that there are some differences between the various states and their laws.

So, if you go to NY, and don't carry a gun, NY doesn't care. NY isn't denying your right to carry in your home state, only in their state, because you do not meet their legal requirements.

And this is where things start to go sideways....

Quote:
The national reciprocity act is a minimal intrusion to help the exercise of the right to carry -
So, we agree that it is an intrusion...

Quote:
not requiring a state to issue a carry license, not defining a states carry laws as to where or when or how one may legally carry -
No, not requiring the state to issue a license to non-residents, only to recognize the non-resident license. Which might have issuance requirements vastly different from the state being "ordered" to recognize it.

And, no, not defining a state's laws...which are an internal matter to the state, where, as I understand it, at this time, the federal govt doesn't have the authority to do.

Which is one of the cruxes of the issue, the viewpoint of one side that the Fed does have that power, and of the other that the Fed does not.

Quote:
except to say that if carry is legal then individuals who are licensed to carry in another state may carry in that state subject to that states restrictions on manner, time, and place.
Very nice language that says to the state(s) "you have to let non-residents carry (if they have a valid permit from home) but you get to choose when, and where.

What if the state chooses to say, ok, you can carry on your non-resident permit, never, in our state. This is essentially what we have now.

Quote:
Federal law seems to have had no problem in the least in the past regulating private possession or ownership of firearms even if not in commerce
Absolutely, they have done it with tax laws, and straight up gun control laws. And there is a significant set of case laws and court decisions that essentially say that there is nothing you own that is NOT in commerce. Even things you don't sell "affect" commerce, and therefore fall under the govt's authority.

Look at what happened to those wheat farmers....
Not something I agree with, but they keep telling us, it IS the LAW.

Quote:
During the assault weapons ban me taking my own rifle and altering it with a group of modifications or a modification that created a so called assault weapon was a crime as was modifying a magazine to take more than 10 rounds.
you answered your own question with the words "altering it". Even though to you, it was still the same "old" gun or magazine, just altered, to the law, you were making something "new" (by altering it) and that new thing was in the prohibited class.

No, the law didn't make sense, no, it wasn't a good law, but it was the law. They set a cutoff date on certain features. You couldn't put them on new guns, couldn't import gun with those features. AND if you did put them on a gun made/imported after the date, you were breaking the law.

Guns (and magazines) that pre-existed the cut off date (when the law went into effect) were grandfathered, they could have those prohibited features and still be sold. They could be modified with those features if they didn't already have them, and still be sold. They were exempt from that law.

SO, if the gun or magazine you modified existed before the law went into effect, you committed no crime. If you modified a gun/mag that fell under the law, then you were committing a crime doing so. Even if it was your own property.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 06:52 AM   #122
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
In the absence of the certainty of application of that doctrine, federalization of intrastate carry gives the representatives of NY, CA, HI and NJ a voice in the carry policy of KY, VT, GA, OH and TX. It doesn't require superhuman foresight to foresee a future Congress manifesting its hostility to the right through legislation pertaining to carry.
This. The passage of a national reciprocity law, while allowing carry in those most restrictive of states, also provides a substantial step towards the federal gov't to establish national standards for issuance of CCLs. I, for one, don't want NY, CA, HI, NJ, MD, etc. representatives (against whom I cannot vote) to have any voice whatsoever in what standards AR has for for issuing me a CHCL.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 11:40 AM   #123
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
The bill has been passed to the floor for a general vote that might come in the next week. I guess it is not "dead" quite yet.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 01:09 PM   #124
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
This. The passage of a national reciprocity law, while allowing carry in those most restrictive of states, also provides a substantial step towards the federal gov't to establish national standards for issuance of CCLs. I, for one, don't want NY, CA, HI, NJ, MD, etc. representatives (against whom I cannot vote) to have any voice whatsoever in what standards AR has for for issuing me a CHCL.
They can do that any time they choose. Don't give them ideas.

Whether it's under the umbrella of a national reciprocity bill or addressed as free-standing legislation, carry across state lines is (or "affects) interstate commerce and could be address by federal legislation by invoking (as they always do) the interstate commerce clause. The feds could just say that nobody is allowed to carry a firearm outside of their state of residence unless a+b+c+x+y+z.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 2, 2017, 01:42 PM   #125
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,874
Aguila, thanks for that last observation. I think it could provide an opportunity to convey a point that isn't being absorbed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AB
Quote:
This. The passage of a national reciprocity law, while allowing carry in those most restrictive of states, also provides a substantial step towards the federal gov't to establish national standards for issuance of CCLs. I, for one, don't want NY, CA, HI, NJ, MD, etc. representatives (against whom I cannot vote) to have any voice whatsoever in what standards AR has for for issuing me a CHCL.
They can do that any time they choose. Don't give them ideas.

Whether it's under the umbrella of a national reciprocity bill or addressed as free-standing legislation, carry across state lines is (or "affects) interstate commerce and could be address by federal legislation by invoking (as they always do) the interstate commerce clause. The feds could just say that nobody is allowed to carry a firearm outside of their state of residence unless a+b+c+x+y+z.
Emphasis added.

Spats' point is different.

Carry laws are currently a matter of state police power. Making carry law within a state a federalized matter for the purpose of allowing it, also makes it a federalized matter for the purpose of prohibiting or licensing it.

That isn't something Congress ca do currently unless it posits a link to interstate commerce or some other basis for asserting federal power over the matter. Federally mandated reciprocity hands that point to those who would be happy to use federal authority to "regulate" carry.

If your response is that congress will just author whatever fiction to allow to do what it wishes, you might be right. Do you want to be the force that destroys that constitutional impediment to federal control?
zukiphile is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 12:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12015 seconds with 8 queries