looking for a brief and convincing argument against National Reciprocity

[zukiphile]

If the SCOTUS has defined the 2nd amendment as an individual right, as I understand it, why are the privileges of that right altered by one's state of residence?

A short answer? Because states have very broad police powers. This was touched on in the thread linked below.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=589609

[44 AMP]

If the SCOTUS has defined the 2nd amendment as an individual right, as I understand it, why are the privileges of that right altered by one's state of residence?

A longer answer is because we are dealing with concepts that were codified in the late 1700s, and the generally accepted meaning of the language used wasn't really challenged until the 1900s.

Why did it take until Heller for the high court to rule and say our right to arms was an individual right, independent of the militia?

Simply because there was never any need to do so, until the self proclaimed "progressives" decided that what the Constitution said wasn't what it actually meant, and substituted their views, instead.

The nature of our government, and its relationships with itself, the states and the people have changed, since the Founders wrote the Constitution.

We are a long, long way from "to provide for the common defense, to coin money, and to regulate trade between the states" that the Founders hoped would be the only roles for the Federal Government.

Understand that for a long, long time, the only "US citizens" were those citizens of US territories and possessions. Everyone else was a citizen of a STATE. And the states were, voluntarily part of the Union. Those concepts still exist, but we are a long, long way from them today, as a practical matter.

The Federal Government rules the nation, but allows states to pretty much do what they want, up to a point. And that point is a moving target, depending on the issue involved.

If a state gets to write their own rules, about SOME things, why not everything?? or nothing? There is merit to both arguments, and also in the system as it currently exists.

How much and to what amount such merit matters, depends on the number of people who's ox is being gored, on any particular issue.

Personally, I think the system isn't broken, and therefore, doesn't need to be "fixed" (and fixed badly) the way a small but very vocal minority are demanding.

Could it, and should it be improved? Absolutely, but I don't think the proper way to do it is with a top down federal mandate, whether its called a law, a court ruling, or something else.

Don't get me wrong, I grew up in NY, and hated the laws there, way back then. I would hate the laws there now even more, but I don't live there now.

So I have a strong belief that no one from the outside should tell the people who live there how to manage their affairs, just as I don't want someone doing the same to me.

The people who live there COULD change their laws. They can change the way their government applies their laws. If they cared to. Its called representative government. (sometimes called democracy)

The down side is that if enough people are bullheaded the same way about something, they get what they want, no matter if its the right thing, or not.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

If you take the argument to its absurd extreme, Congress should not pass a national reciprocity law. Instead, congress should make a law that abolishes ALL permits. (Since that would be "equal treatment under the law". If one state, or more don't require a permit, none should.

Respectfully, that's not taking anything to a ridiculous extreme. That is, in fact, exactly what should be done. And it shouldn't be dependent on whether or not one state doesn't require permits. The Second Amendment clearly enumerates a right to keep and bear arms. I am not the first person to point out that if you need to pay a fee and procure a permission slip, it is no longer a right, but a privilege.

[Patsy4fingers]

My concern is the Gov. Cuomo ends up in the white house and tries to replicate what he did to gun laws in NY at the national level. I admit to not reading any of the reciprocity legislation proposed, but I hope it would protect against this and not make it easier.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Patsy4fingers

My concern is the Gov. Cuomo ends up in the white house and tries to replicate what he did to gun laws in NY at the national level. I admit to not reading any of the reciprocity legislation proposed, but I hope it would protect against this and not make it easier.

There is nothing in either the Senate or House version that would make what you fear any easier than it is already. There is also nothing in either version that would make it more difficult. Just remember -- if what you fear was easy, Obama would have done it years ago.

[TDL]

Let me address some practical poltical issues and aspects not discussed so far here.

Pro: This long term effort has a dual purpose. 1) to actually achieve federally mandated (very unlikely) reciprocity; 2) to counter significant expansion of gun control in Congress. On the latter it offers significant benefits, even if it merely serves as a poison pill as we saw in 2013.

Con: The gun control lobby fronts are more able to uses this to fundraise, and with the majority of their funding now a 501(c)3 channel to one party, this issue is to their advantage. One must consider that carry permit holders are a minority of gun owners. Whereas opposition to any expansion of carry is the full set of gun control advocates, fronts, and their funders.

In terms of views on policy (vs. political), and the long term considerations and pros and cons of incrementally moving this particular issue from a state issue to a federal one, the pros and cons of that are well covered by other commenters.

Let's recognize that this issue serves a purpose as a legislative strategy. If we look at it from that aspect, it makes a lot of sense to have on a back burner.