National Reciprocity is Dead

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AB

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.

Determining who carries within a state is fairly described as part of the administration state law.

Originally Posted by AB

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

FOPA addresses transportation through a state, an activity that is categorically interstate. That isn't a small difference.

Originally Posted by AB

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

I don't doubt that it would be significant, but it may not be helpful.

[K_Mac]

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.

How does that work in a state like NJ or California where carrying a gun is extremely restricted? A nonresident would have more freedom to carry than most of the residents, if he/she can carry at all.

This bill forces states to comply with a Federal mandate against the will of the people and the laws of that state. This mandate is based on the premise that unrestricted concealed carry is a Constitutional right granted by the Second Amendment.

I understand that your position is, "shall not be infringed," means that any regulation of keeping and bearing arms is a violation of our rights. In a woodenly ridged interpretation this would mean that the right to bear arms supercedes my right to forbid it on my property, or that banning guns in court violates my right. We cannot dismiss the prefatory clause because we believe that, 'we the people,' are the militia, without at least examining what, "well regulated," means.

This bill, if passed, says I have the right to carry in your state, based on my 2A rights regardless of your laws. The problem is there is not universal agreement that this is the intent of the Amendment. Your state's view of what, "well regulated," means may be completely different than mine. Without a clear mandate, inserting the Feds nose into the tent of the individual states is more troubling to me than the fact that I can't carry a gun in NJ or NYC.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by K_Mac

In a woodenly ridged interpretation this would mean that the right to bear arms supercedes my right to forbid it on my property,

That's fine with me. Just forbid the person from my property

[K_Mac]

That's fine with me. Just forbid the person from my property

That's funny! You can forbid me to come on your property if you like. I don't want the Feds making the call.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

Just forbid the person from my property

The irony of this comment is that, should this law pass, I can envision legions of private business owners in major metro areas in CA/MA/NY/etc doing exactly that.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FITASC

Are you that young and naive?

I dunno -- is 73 (almost 74) "young" in your book? I carried an M16 in Vietnam. I've testified before legislatures, both to get laws passed and to get a law repealed. I've been a material witness in two federal white collar crime cases. I've done a lot and I've seen a lot. I don't think I'm naive, but you're welcome to your opinion. All I ask is that, in expressing your opinion, you respect my right to express my opinion without attempting to belittle me.

[FITASC]

Not belittling, just try to find out. Many of the young folks here, taught in today's public schools ARE young and naive..............

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

FOPA addresses transportation through a state, an activity that is categorically interstate. That isn't a small difference.

In terms of "interstateness" I have to disagree. If the guns come from another state and the person comes from another state, why is it "interstate" when the person transports the firearm in the trunk of his car, but it's not "interstate" when the person (who is from another state) wants to carry the same gun (which is also from another state) on his belt?

If I live in Kansas and I want to visit the statue of liberty and see New York, I'll be crossing state borders, and I'll be spending money that I earned in Kansas on food, lodging, transportation, and "stuff" in New York. How is that NOT interstate commerce?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AB

In terms of "interstateness" I have to disagree. If the guns come from another state and the person comes from another state, why is it "interstate" when the person transports the firearm in the trunk of his car, but it's not "interstate" when the person (who is from another state) wants to carry the same gun (which is also from another state) on his belt?

The act of carrying entirely within a state is itself intrastate while traveling from state to state never is.

Note that the terms of the reciprocity bill don't just bear on application of state laws on people from other states, but on the residents of the state as well. A resident of state X can get a permit from state Y, and use it to carry an arm manufactured in state X within state X.

Originally Posted by AB

If I live in Kansas and I want to visit the statue of liberty and see New York, I'll be crossing state borders, and I'll be spending money that I earned in Kansas on food, lodging, transportation, and "stuff" in New York. How is that NOT interstate commerce?

You just described commerce that occurs entirely within NY and asked how it isn't interstate commerce. That you described public accommodations within NY doesn't make the commerce you describe "interstate", but are facilities necessary to and affecting interstate commerce under existing case law. The gist of the public accommodation caselaw is that one can't travel if he can't stay at a hotel or eat in a restaurant, so Congress has authority to regulate it.

Carrying your arm is not a public accommodation or necessary to or substantially affecting interstate commerce. I would like to see you able to carry it in every state, just not at the price of inviting Congress into every state to regulate how everyone else can carry. In the long run, I don't trust Congress more than state legislatures in matters of state police powers.

[JohnKSa]

Each state will still be free to write carry laws, just as they always have.

Except when it comes to who is allowed to carry and who is not. They will not have control over that because it will be mandated that if anyone is allowed to carry in any other state, even if they would be prohibited from carry in the state in question, they will be allowed to do so with their home state permit.

In other words, each state will be limited, at least to some extent, as to what carry laws it can write and enforce.

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.

Unless their rules say I can't carry at all. In that case their rules don't apply to me even though they apply to their citizens.

In other words, at least some of their rules won't apply to me.

We can argue about whether or not those infringements on state's rights are large or small, and about whether or not they are worth letting the federal government get their noses under the tent, but it's pretty obvious that they ARE getting their nose under the tent with this law.

[Brit]

The reciprocity bill?

The original argument, or way to look at it, this bill. Is from the perspective of a State issued driving license, allows driving in every State?

For instance at this time, a retired Law Enforcement Officer, on retirement, with X number of years service? Can carry concealed in every state. With a re-ql. each year.
If this has not caused blood in the streets, as bleated about with the people who opposed it? Why would I carrying in Sacramento CA, visiting with my Wife, once a year, the last visit a month? Be a big deal?

Visiting Malls, with a 4-year-old, and 5 years old, and sharing the area, with some sketchy characters? Make any normal person feel threatened?
At this time my only means of protection is my City Stick, a composite walking stick, that is better than nothing.

I would even not find it too much of an inconvenience, to swap my 15 round magazines for the 10 rounders, mandated in Democrat land CA.
My Glock 19 was waiting for me in my safe on my return! Gods Country. Florida. As my Wife and I are the only denizens of our wee Townhouse, the three green dots are visible on my bedside table right now!

Merry Christmas all.

[zukiphile]

The original argument, or way to look at it, this bill. Is from the perspective of a State issued driving license, allows driving in every State?

I understand why this keeps recurring as an analogy. We all expect our home state driver's license to be honored in every state. However that isn't a matter of federal imposition.

http://apps.csg.org/ncic/Compact.aspx?id=56

I can recall traveling with my father and the PO wanting to keep his driver's license because he was a resident of another state. This was supposed to insure payment of the ticket or appearance in court. I believe one of the reasons people belonged to AAA was that it would post a bond for your out of state appearance, and you were allowed to retain your license.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Except when it comes to who is allowed to carry and who is not. They will not have control over that because it will be mandated that if anyone is allowed to carry in any other state, even if they would be prohibited from carry in the state in question, they will be allowed to do so with their home state permit.

Which, until we eliminate carry permits entirely and get back to what the Second Amendment actually says, is the way it should be.

I do not understand you naysayers. The principle underlying this law is exactly the same as that underlying the FOPA and the LEOSA.

FOPA:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, ...

LEOSA:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, ...

Proposed reciprocity (HR 38):

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof ...

[Mike Irwin]

"But the threshhold was as simple as the person could no longer balance his/her checkbook and therefore needed (or just wanted) some help in watching the money, not that they were in any way a danger to society. Ask Mike Irwin -- IIRC, he went through this with his mother. (Not the NICS report, but the fact that she reached a point of not being capable of managing her own finances. That didn't make her a menace to society.)"

Correct. Mom was having increasing trouble managing her finances, was missing payments, and worse, was randomly canceling stuff that she needed, like insurance.

Went through hell sorting that out, but she didn't give me too much hassle taking over her bills.

I did, however, take her (my actually) gun away from her. She was FAR more pissed about that than she was me handling her finances.

[FITASC]

Because those of us who do not live with the restrictions imposed by NJ, NY, CA, etc. do not want them imposed in out state from a Federal level - and that WILL happen; maybe not immediately, but once the administration changes, it will. This is NOT a Federal government issue, and I - for one - do not want it to become one.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AB

Proposed reciprocity (HR 38):

That's the signal that Congress is over-riding state legislation on state police powers. Whether Congress properly has that power under the COTUS in this specific matter is the issue raised. The nay sayers are not suggesting that the federal government has never exceeded it's bounds in other matters, but that resolving the issue above legislatively may not be a long term victory.

LEOSA over-rides those state police powers where an individual is an agent of another law enforcement agency, an agent from another jurisdiction. FOPA protections for travelers pertain specifically to travel through a jurisdiction.

HR 38 is direct congressional interference in a state's exercise of police powers over state residents for activity within that state.

[jdc1244]

Except when it comes to who is allowed to carry and who is not. They will not have control over that because it will be mandated that if anyone is allowed to carry in any other state, even if they would be prohibited from carry in the state in question, they will be allowed to do so with their home state permit.

Only when traveling through a state or staying for a short period of time.

When a permit holder becomes a resident of a new state, he’ll be required to obtain a new permit pursuant to the laws of his new state.

We can argue about whether or not those infringements on state's rights are large or small, and about whether or not they are worth letting the federal government get their noses under the tent, but it's pretty obvious that they ARE getting their nose under the tent with this law.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Indeed, all regulatory authority will remain solely with the states.

[K_Mac]

Indeed, all regulatory authority will remain solely with the states.

All regulatory authority, not eliminated by HR 38.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

LEOSA over-rides those state police powers where an individual is an agent of another law enforcement agency, an agent from another jurisdiction. FOPA protections for travelers pertain specifically to travel through a jurisdiction.

HR 38 is direct congressional interference in a state's exercise of police powers over state residents for activity within that state.

The LEOSA also applies to retired law enforcement officers -- who are private citizens, just like you and me.

And the FOPA applies to people traveling through states with guns, including states where the residents can't travel with guns. Like my state. It's legal to possess a handgun here without a license/permit, but unless you have a license/permit you can't even [legally] take your handgun to a range for practice -- even if it's unloaded and in a locked case while you're transporting it. But anyone transporting the same make and model handgun from a state to our west to a state to our east can do so under the FOPA.

So, if the proposed HR 38 is in any way a harbinger of camels and tents, I'd say the camel is already into the tent at least up to his first hump.

[JohnKSa]

Which, until we eliminate carry permits entirely and get back to what the Second Amendment actually says, is the way it should be.

Sure, but that's another issue.

The principle underlying this law is exactly the same as that underlying the FOPA and the LEOSA.

Whether it is or it isn't doesn't change the fact that this is the first time the federal government put its nose into the actual nuts and bolts of how state carry laws are written and administered.

Slippery slope fallacy.

A slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if someone makes the unwarranted/unjustified/unreasonable assumption that a particular action will lead to more actions.

1. If the assumption is warranted, it's not a fallacy.

2. My objection is not based purely on the assumption that it will lead to more actions--although that assumption is warranted/reasonable based on past patterns of federal regulation and encroachment--it is also based on general principle.

Indeed, all regulatory authority will remain solely with the states.

Except when that authority conflicts with the regulatory authority of the new law. If it were true that all regulatory authority remained with the states, then the new law would have no effect. The only way that the new law can have any effect is if it overrides the regulatory authority of the states and forces them to allow activity they would otherwise prohibit.

The LEOSA also applies to retired law enforcement officers -- who are private citizens, just like you and me.

LEOSA merely extends some of the normal privileges of law enforcement officers into their retirement. LEOSA does not apply to people just like you and me unless you and I retired from LE.

[armoredman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...I carried an M16 in Vietnam...

Just in case I forgot to say it earlier, thank you for your service, sir.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSA

LEOSA merely extends some of the normal privileges of law enforcement officers into their retirement. LEOSA does not apply to people just like you and me unless you and I retired from LE.

No, it didn't. Active LEOs did not have any legal right to carry in other states prior to the LEOSA, no more right than you or I did. The fact that some cops in some states would give an officer from another state a break didn't make it legal. It was the LEOSA that made it legal for both active and retired law enforcement officers to carry in all states, "notwithstanding" the laws of the other states. The LEOSA didn't extend any privileges into retirement. The law has two sections, one addressing active LEOs and the other addressing retired LEOs.

Which ignores the fundamental fact that a retired LEO is not an LEO. He/she is a private citizen -- just like you and me.

[TomNJVA]

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

"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."

The right to "keep and bear arms" is delegated to the United States through the 2nd Amendment, and is therefore to my thinking not a state issue at all. The problem is the states interpret the words "keep and bear arms" differently. Is it not the role of the US Supreme Court to resolve such different interpretations of the US Constitution among the states?

By leaving the interpretation to the states, an upstanding and law abiding citizen in State A may become a felon by crossing the border into State B with his legally owned firearm and spend years in prison. What could be more important for the SCOUS to clarify?

TomVA

[JohnKSa]

He/she is a private citizen -- just like you and me.

Ok, then we don't need national reciprocity. Just carry under LEOSA.

[Don P]

The LEOSA didn't extend any privileges into retirement. The law has two sections, one addressing active LEOs and the other addressing retired LEOs.

And the retired LE's that I shoot with have to qualify in order to maintain certification