National Reciprocity is Dead

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Not only is that right a matter of political power for the state, but it is also a matter of public safety, as they see it. The argument is that they simply don't wish to allow people who do not meet their state's "level of trust" requirements to go armed among them. They feel that is a public safety risk.

There is some merit to that argument. But, is it enough?

There's not much merit to that argument at all.

Pennsylvania doesn't require any training to get a license to carry firearm. Vermont doesn't even have permits or licenses to carry handguns, even concealed. I don't think the statistics will show that Pennsylvania or Vermont is significantly less safe in terms of firearms incidents than nearby states that require training.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The argument is that they simply don't wish to allow people who do not meet their state's "level of trust" requirements to go armed among them. They feel that is a public safety risk.

Since they made this claim, they should already have the evidence to back it up if it is valid.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The trouble the driver's license example is that gun laws, unlike traffic laws, vary widely between the states. AS DO the requirements for getting a carry permit.

No matter how many times I've said it, folks do not seem to get it.

There is no such animal as National Reciprocity of Drivers Licenses.

The federal government was never involved with this, as it was wholly a State issue.

Licensing of Drivers, was at first a voluntary issue. It was sold to the public as a means to build new roads and for maintenance of those roads. Those who chose to drive these new-fangled horseless carriages, should be required to pay for the roads being built. A drivers license also showed that the driver of a vehicle was familiar with the "rules of the road" as each state began passing such laws. At first, such laws varied widely. There were no common grounds.

Vehicle registrations followed the same pattern. Fact is, some states had vehicle registration before they had Drivers Licensing.

Regardless, one after another, what was first a voluntary tax, became a mandatory tax among the States, as they saw more and more people driving. It was a ready-made money pot and all the States followed suit.

The individual States decided among themselves to offer reciprocity to the other States. By this time, it was reasoned that if they didn't recognize the other states licensing, they would be cutting their state out of revenue generated by tourism. It was at this point when the driving laws began to be changed to accommodate the laws of the other states.

The federal government only got into the act, when they realized that they could make money off of the fact that certain vehicles and drivers carried out interstate commerce (the trucking industry). Enter the DOT.

In order to comply with the new regulations for interstate commerce, the states had to devise a new licensing scheme. Enter the state issued CDL.

It was at this point in history that the states really began adopting laws that were the same for each state. Even at this late date, certain traffic laws are still different in each state: Right turns at red lights, for example. Some state allow this, some states do not.

The above is a brief but accurate history of how we got from paying a voluntary tax, to help pay for roads, to a mandatory tax, to show we know the rules of the road, and how state reciprocity came about.

None of that history precludes one state recognizing the carry permits of another state. The same process is being carried out today, albeit at what seems to be a much slower pace.

If history does in fact repeat itself, then a federal reciprocity act will become a federal licensing scheme, in much the same way the DOT forced the states to issue CDL's.

The real danger is that with federal involvement, I suspect the feds will, in a short time, simply design their own licensing structure and force the states to comply. That is currently well within the parameters of Commerce Clause interpretation.

Your state permit will become useless. Your states authority will have been usurped.

Those of you that want this, will have been instrumental in letting the feds gain more power and authority and thereby weakening the powers and authority of your own states.

[JN01]

If this bill requires Massachusetts to accept concealed carry licenses from other states, would they still be able to arrest that person for having an unregistered gun in violation of MA law?

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by JN01

If this bill requires Massachusetts to accept concealed carry licenses from other states, would they still be able to arrest that person for having an unregistered gun in violation of MA law?

If the bill goes into force as currently written, yes, MA authorities will be able to do so.

As discussed in this TFL thread and others, I've predicted that restrictive states will react to this bill by strongly ratcheting up their handgun registration requirements.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

Your state permit will become useless. Your states authority will have been usurped.

Those of you that want this, will have been instrumental in letting the feds gain more power and authority and thereby weakening the powers and authority of your own states.

I see your point, but if you live in a state like California where in many counties you simply can't get a permit it's hard to argue with having the Feds make the state and county honor the constitution.

[Don P]

As Al has stated and many others have stated and I'll use the quote "getting the feds involved is letting the camel poke his nose under the tent". How long do you think it would take for the entire camel to be inside the tent? Seems most of the folks posting are from states that have outlandish restrictive gun laws. Just my take on what I see here in posts. Again according to the Rep who was on the idiot box last week, he stated that places like NYC would not be effected by the law. so you WOULD NOT be able to carry in NYC.

but if you live in a state like California where in many counties you simply can't get a permit

So if the Rep was correct in his statement what would that do for the folks mentioned in the quote??????

[5whiskey]

I see your point, but if you live in a state like California where in many counties you simply can't get a permit it's hard to argue with having the Feds make the state and county honor the constitution.

To be fair, for reasons that have been discussed, this could still be a net loss. So those counties in California, and new York city, and several other restrictive places may be forced to honor/issue ccw permits. The rest of free america may see our rights severely restricted or come to be prohibitive in cost. If the feds control it, dollars to donuts that they will spend more effort appeasing concerns of the anti-gun areas than they will spend making sure pro-gun areas maintain their current level of freedom.

I'm big on states rights, which is one issue I have with this bill. If you don't like your state laws, move to a state with better laws. Seriously. I know its a hassle, but its feasible. Much more so than moving to another country should federal law become unbearable.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by natman

I see your point, but if you live in a state like California where in many counties you simply can't get a permit it's hard to argue with having the Feds make the state and county honor the constitution.

I don't think it is a good idea of having the feds step in to do the job of the courts. Besides, National Reciprocity involves all the states, not just the anti-gun states.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by natman

I see your point, but if you live in a state like California where in many counties you simply can't get a permit it's hard to argue with having the Feds make the state and county honor the constitution.

Emphasis added.

Natman,your idea, bolded above, seems less pernicious and more principled than the language at work in the reciprocity bill. The reciprocity bill does not simply incorporate the Second Amendment for purpose of enforcement against the states, something McDonald already did. Instead, it uses the vehicle of various state permitting systems.

[TomNJVA]

What might work would be a "Federal Carry License" with requirements that satisfy even the most stringent state criteria, e.g eight hours of classroom lecture with range time, or whatever. This license would be separate from a state license to carry, and could be held in lieu of or in addition to a state license. It would likely be accepted by those states (most) that allow any form of concealed carry, thus making travel a bit easier without worrying about reciprocity laws as there would only be a few state exceptions. I don't know if the Federal law could force all states to accept, but it could offer incentive to those that do. It also might put more pressure on those may-issue states who in fact don't issue carry licenses by making them stand out, and perhaps offer a stronger legal argument against such states.

I am not a lawyer so this may be folly, but hey it's an idea.

TomVA

[TracerTesterman]

Good explaining, AL NORRIS.

This truly could be a Pandora's Box we don't want to hand over to the Federal Government.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

What might work would be a "Federal Carry License" with requirements that satisfy even the most stringent state criteria, e.g eight hours of classroom lecture with range time, or whatever. This license would be separate from a state license to carry, and could be held in lieu of or in addition to a state license.

This idea has been discussed on TFL previously, and assuming for the sake of argument that Fed action is inevitable, I could get behind the idea of superimposing a Fed carry license scheme above and in addition to the existing state reciprocity system.

However, my preference is still for the Feds to stay out of it altogether to keep the proverbial camel out, and I don't think either side is realistically interested in a reasonable compromise right now. One of my main reservations about HR 38 is that it blatantly pokes restrictive states in the eye and dares them to broadly challenge shall-issue CCW in court; however, many HR 38 supporters seem to see this as the whole point of the exercise.

[FITASC]

Those of you that want this, will have been instrumental in letting the feds gain more power and authority and thereby weakening the powers and authority of your own states.

+1, what I have been saying all along. Get the Feds out of everything that should be a State's rights issue.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

The real danger is that with federal involvement, I suspect the feds will, in a short time, simply design their own licensing structure and force the states to comply. That is currently well within the parameters of Commerce Clause interpretation.

This. As unsavory as National Reciprocity will be when it is passed, it pales in comparison to what it will almost certainly become... Is a small and brief reprieve for restrictive anti-gun states worth it to screw over all the states in the long run permanently?

[raimius]

To those worried about federal involvement...that ship sailed LONG ago. NFA, GCA, Brady Bill, '94 AWB, National Park Carry, AMTRAK, etc, etc.
Requiring states to honor other states permits if far less intrusive than what has already happened. Worrying about precedent seems like a weak argument.

[JohnKSa]

To those worried about federal involvement...that ship sailed LONG ago. NFA, GCA, Brady Bill, '94 AWB, National Park Carry, AMTRAK, etc, etc.

None of those affect state carry laws. They either have nothing to do with carry at all, or are specifically limited to carry on federal/federally administered property/assets.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

None of those affect state carry laws. They either have nothing to do with carry at all, or are specifically limited to carry on federal/federally administered property/assets.

Those don't affect state laws, but they do affect interstate carry and interstate travel.

Suppose you live in an eastern state and you want to visit one (or some) of the national parks in the west. Until recently, carry in national parks was prohibited. Now, if I understand it correctly, a national park defers to the laws of the state(s) in which it's located. In the est, Acadia National Park, in Maine, is subject some Byzantine regulations based on Maine law. I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I think it's something along the lines of Maine recognizes other states' permits, except that you need a Maine permit to carry in State parks and in Acadia National Park.

The issue isn't whether or not something affects state carry laws - the issue is whether (or how) something affects carry in other states. Once carry across state lines is affected, whether it's due to state or federal law is only of interest in figuring out how to get it changed.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by Don P

How long do you think it would take for the entire camel to be inside the tent?

The camel is not only already inside the tent, it's defecating on the floor and lounging in the bed. It got its nose under the tent in 1934...

I have yet to see a convincing legal argument that there is a restrictive law that Congress can pass with national reciprocity that they can't pass without it.

[zukiphile]

The issue isn't whether or not something affects state carry laws - the issue is whether (or how) something affects carry in other states. Once carry across state lines is affected, whether it's due to state or federal law is only of interest in figuring out how to get it changed.

Whether the the reciprocity bill affects a non commercial activity that occurs entirely within a state is exactly the issue that has been raised.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Armed_Chicagoan

I have yet to see a convincing legal argument that there is a restrictive law that Congress can pass with national reciprocity that they can't pass without it.

There's not, but that's not the point.

The point is that HR 38 would insert the Feds right into the middle of a legal field that is almost exclusively the states' business today, and more critically, it would establish a de facto lowest common denominator licensing standard. It would effectively invalidate a large body of state and local law that dates back decades in many cases. Past federal gun control efforts did not do this on a large scale.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Whether the the reciprocity bill affects a non commercial activity that occurs entirely within a state is exactly the issue that has been raised.

Unless you happen to live in the state in which your firearm was manufactured, and your firearm didn't pass through a distributor in another state on its way to your local FFL, firearms are items in interstate commerce, and that's all the feds need in order to assert jurisdiction.

Oh, but wait! Where did your ammunition come from?

[JohnKSa]

Those don't affect state laws, but they do affect interstate carry...

That's a stretch. The fact that the federal government LIFTED restrictions on certain types of federal/federally administered property/assets doesn't change state carry laws.

That's like saying that I affect the state speed limits if I own a private road that I allow public traffic to use and then at some point, I remove the lower speed limit that I set and allow the state speed limit to apply even on my property. I'm not changing or affecting the state laws, I'm just lifting a restriction I had imposed on my own property.

The issue isn't whether or not something affects state carry laws...

Actually, that's exactly the issue. Obviously the federal government has involved itself in myriad issues that are actually the business of the state. But so far they have remained remarkably hands off with respect to how state carry laws are written and administered.

Nobody that I can see is pretending that this will be the first time the federal government has put its nose where it doesn't belong. The argument is that this will be the first time the federal government has put its nose into the actual nuts and bolts of how state carry laws are written and administered.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Nobody that I can see is pretending that this will be the first time the federal government has put its nose where it doesn't belong. The argument is that this will be the first time the federal government has put its nose into the actual nuts and bolts of how state carry laws are written and administered.

How does this get into how state carry laws are written, or administered? That's a rhetorical question -- the answer is, it doesn't.

Each state will still be free to write carry laws, just as they always have. And, just as with states that currently enjoy reciprocity, when carrying in a state other than your home state you will be subject to carrying according to their rules. The only difference is that you will be allowed to do so in states that currently don't offer reciprocity.

This is really no different than the FOPA, except that this addresses carry, where the FOPA addresses transportation.

Are you aware that the NRA regards this as the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation since the Second Amendment?

[FITASC]

Are you that young and naive? Once the Feds can take control (and they will), folks in AZ and other states will have restrictions based on what the lawmakers in NY, NJ and elsewhere want in order for you to MAYBE be allowed to carry in those other states.

IT is NOT worth the ceding of freedom and control to an ever-increasing and controlling central government.
Keep the feds OUT of this. States with free gun ownership and carry ability have already worked out reciprocity. Forcing the proverbial square peg into the round hole of those anti states doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.