Concealed-Carry ‘Reciprocity’ vs. Federalism

[rep308]

This is a good read, especially for all the small government loving, states rights federalist, that think it is a good ideas for the Federal Government to mandate that other states recognize each other CCW permits:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448152/concealed-carry-reciprocity-federalism-state-issue

....Mandatory reciprocity is constitutionally defensible, though not for the reasons these bills’ sponsors and most of their supporters seem to think. But it would be a federal overreach, and ultimately a bad tradeoff for conservatives to strike. A sovereign state that requires its own citizens to meet certain requirements before carrying a concealed weapon should be allowed to demand the same of non-residents.....

Again, I'm not advocating one side or another, just suggesting what ever side you are on you take a look at the article.

 

[firestorm]

This is a good read, especially for all the small government loving, states rights federalist, that think it is a good ideas for the Federal Government to mandate that other states recognize each other CCW permits:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448152/concealed-carry-reciprocity-federalism-state-issue

....Mandatory reciprocity is constitutionally defensible, though not for the reasons these bills’ sponsors and most of their supporters seem to think. But it would be a federal overreach, and ultimately a bad tradeoff for conservatives to strike. A sovereign state that requires its own citizens to meet certain requirements before carrying a concealed weapon should be allowed to demand the same of non-residents.....

Again, I'm not advocating one side or another, just suggesting what ever side you are on you take a look at the article.

Everyone knows it is an overreach, the issue is it's how the game is played. If we sit on principle and say "No, we won't do that as it allows the feds into this area" then we will never have it and always be at the mercy of anti states. The antis are working at all levels to screw us, and so far we have only gotten relief at all from the federal courts, and then only rarely. Better to put something like this in place and make them fight from the back foot for a change then to hope that somehow we will get this, 50-100 years from now, assuming the courts are with us.

 

[browncoat]

The only acceptable concealed carry bill is one that states that the second amendment is the only license anyone in the country needs. The federal government is allowed to enforce rights. I don't believe it can enforce reciprocity, and it shouldn't

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Cabinetman]

As much as I would love to be able to carry across state's lines with just a resident permit, I abhor the idea of 'giving' the Federal Government control over something they currently do not have authority to control. As the other poster said, the Federal Government should dictate to the states that the 2A shall not be infringed, and enforce that. They DO have authority to dictate that State's follow the Constitution since it's the God-given right to every American citizen, not some Bureaucrat's play toy.

Rome

 

[firestorm]

As much as I would love to be able to carry across state's lines with just a resident permit, I abhor the idea of 'giving' the Federal Government control over something they currently do not have authority to control. As the other poster said, the Federal Government should dictate to the states that the 2A shall not be infringed, and enforce that. They DO have authority to dictate that State's follow the Constitution since it's the God-given right to every American citizen, not some Bureaucrat's play toy.

Rome

Right, and something like this does not create a federal permit, it dictates that they accept part of the second amendment. You will never get the feds to back off of all regulation and also tell the states they have to abide by the 2nd. You get it in pieces and parts, like a law forcing the states to let legal residents of the united states carry across invisible lines without being molested for it.

 

[MachineHead]

The only acceptable concealed carry bill is one that states that the second amendment is the only license anyone in the country needs. The federal government is allowed to enforce rights. I don't believe it can enforce reciprocity, and it shouldn't

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

This is the way to go. Fighting a licensing scheme involves the states. Advocating for a Right to be equally recognized across the USA is Federal.

 

[ProGun]

I'm just sick of my rights being usurped by commie states. I need to be in NJ soon, and am forced to disarm against my will. Infuriating.

 

[browncoat]

I'm just sick of my rights being usurped by commie states. I need to be in NJ soon, and am forced to disarm against my will. Infuriating.

They will still give people a hard time. See how the commie states handle LEOSA

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[endus]

Great analysis. It's certainly true that any time we give the federal government power it always goes tits up and winds up affecting us in unintended ways.

There are states (MA, CA) where the constitutionality of the gun laws need to be challenged but, taking that as a separate issue, it would be nice to at least see the federal government be more explicit about what kind of penalties can be imposed for certain types of violation.

For example, the hand wringing over transporting firearms in a locked container through NY State or NJ just shouldn't be a thing. There should be zero fear about incurring criminal charges there, including any AWB provisions.

At the absolute minimum I think they could also mandate that there are no criminal penalties allowed for concealed carry out of state as long as you're compliant with your states laws. That seems like it would be consistent with what the author is talking about.

This isn't an endorsement of states not respecting each others' firearms laws or any firearms laws in and of themselves. Just talking about the specific issue at hand.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

It's the only right that doesn't carry across state lines. Why? Is it not the U.S. Constitution, are we not the UNITED STATES of America? Are we not a Union? SHould be guaranteed right in ALL states ...

 

[JayMcB]

I'm just sick of my rights being usurped by commie states. I need to be in NJ soon, and am forced to disarm against my will. Infuriating.

Exactly. Same with CT (for now), and NY for me.

If a driver's license and a marriage license are obligated to be recognized over state lines, why doesn't a RIGHT, enumerated in the Constitution do so?

 

[Shotgun Scully]

How many of you have C&R license or FFL license or MG license/stamp?
These are federal licenses that regulate the 2nd Amendment. Why not standard firearms licensing? Take the States out of it because they cause the turmoil in the system.
This would castrate AG's offices throughout the US, standardize the licensing process and enable reciprocity.

 

[Cabinetman]

It's the only right that doesn't carry across state lines. Why? Is it not the U.S. Constitution, are we not the UNITED STATES of America? Are we not a Union? SHould be guaranteed right in ALL states ...

I've always been curious about how the Constitution would be treated if, in order to exercise your First Amendment Rights of free speech, you HAD TO pass a course on speaking in public, pass a test, pay to have your background investigated and fingerprinted, then had to purchase a First Amendment license from your state. It would only allow you to speak to small groups, however, and you would have to know that certain subjects were verboten and certain words could not be used. If you were to speak to a crowd on a soapbox, you'd have for additional permits. Figuring that serious gun owners, C&R fellas, and FFLs all have to comply to a bit over 11,000 gun laws (no exaggeration), putting a few hoops in front of the 1st amendment should be an issue, right? Bring this up at a 2A debate meeting and see how it flies with the liberal crowd!

Rome

 

[MarkT]

The only acceptable concealed carry bill is one that states that the second amendment is the only license anyone in the country needs. The federal government is allowed to enforce rights. I don't believe it can enforce reciprocity, and it shouldn't

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

I completely agree.

 

[endus]

How many of you have C&R license or FFL license or MG license/stamp?
These are federal licenses that regulate the 2nd Amendment. Why not standard firearms licensing? Take the States out of it because they cause the turmoil in the system.
This would castrate AG's offices throughout the US, standardize the licensing process and enable reciprocity.

I posted a thread a while ago asking what people would trade for meeting the dems half way and requiring something like universal licensing. The sentiment was basically that it ****s over states with minimal licensing or no licensing to help people in a minority of moonbat states, violates the 2A, and sets up the potential for cuckoo discretionary licensing requirements like we have had in MA.

People who thought there *might* be a reasonable trade to be had were looking at loosening the NFA. The majority sentiment was, "no ****ing way" though.

In a reasonable society, it seems like you might be able to write up a fair federal licensing scheme that would be more stable than state licensing. You'd have to be really explicit and specific, about how it works, though. We don't live in a reasonable society, though, so I think the concerns about it winding up being used against people are a critical flaw.

 

[rwl1955]

Ma, NJ, NY,etc. don't recognize the 2nd Amendment as an individual liberty so this is the only way to get them to abide by the Bill of Rights.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

What happens when gun prohibitionists get back into power at the federal level if this were to be the law of the land?
-Migration to a federal licensing scheme and then the following:
-Excessively-expensive licensing.
-Ever-increasing mandatory training, including absolutely anything gun prohibitionists want as required coursework.
-Mandatory yet unobtainable insurance.

 

[voidoid]

Federal licensing almost certainly means a federal registry, and that's a no go, period.

National reciprocity really doesn't have much to do with states rights. It removes the ability of states to bar citizens from exercising a right. Do folks who oppose national reciprocity (on the basis of states rights, not on the basis of "the 2A is my permit") really think that states should have a "right" to entirely restrict citizens from exercising civil rights? If you aren't a resident of New York, you can't possess a firearm there (FOPA doesn't count here, since it applies only to travel through and not to). You have no 2A right in NY if you're not a resident. That's not NY state's right. It's a complete infringement of the 2A.

Apply the same logic to the First Amendment. Imagine you have NO RIGHT to speak freely or worship across state lines. Imagine being barred from a church or synagogue because you don't have a license to practice religion in Nevada when you live in Arizona. Would this author still be saying, "Let's let the states work it out between themselves?"

Bottom line- when states do not respect CCW of other states, the 2A vanishes when you travel. That's certainly not what the Founders intended. Either these rights apply to the citizens of all states whether they live there or are visiting, or they don't.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Federal reciprocity is no different that denying states the right to regulate what neighborhoods blacks and Jews may buy property in. Both usurp states rights to protect individual rights.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

What happens when gun prohibitionists get back into power at the federal level if this were to be the law of the land?
-Migration to a federal licensing scheme and then the following:
-Excessively-expensive licensing.
-Ever-increasing mandatory training, including absolutely anything gun prohibitionists want as required coursework.
-Mandatory yet unobtainable insurance.

Speculation

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The only acceptable concealed carry bill is one that states that the second amendment is the only license anyone in the country needs. The federal government is allowed to enforce rights. I don't believe it can enforce reciprocity, and it shouldn't

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Bingo !

 

[firestorm]

What happens when gun prohibitionists get back into power at the federal level if this were to be the law of the land?
-Migration to a federal licensing scheme and then the following:
-Excessively-expensive licensing.
-Ever-increasing mandatory training, including absolutely anything gun prohibitionists want as required coursework.
-Mandatory yet unobtainable insurance.

Well, since this proposal does not create a system of licensing they could make expensive or migrate to, since there is no federal license they can't require anything for it. If they wanted a federal license they would propose it and get it passed, it hasn't happened and isn't likely to.

The worst they could do when they have power is repeal this and put us back where we are now, but even that is harder to pull off since once a law is in, it is tough to get momentum to repeal it. Plus once someone has a thing they don't usually want to give it up (See obamacare and the repeal woes) and even anti gun politicians have gun owning constituents. It would take a large anti gun majority to repeal something like this, and they would be looking back at previous big anti gun votes and the backlash and lost seats.

 

[Cabinetman]

Ma, NJ, NY,etc. don't recognize the 2nd Amendment as an individual liberty so this is the only way to get them to abide by the Bill of Rights.

This situation; States REFUSING the Federal Law from the SCOTUS; is where the crux of the situation lies. Those states who absolutely refuse to accept edicts handed to them by the Supreme Court are just short of sedition as far as I'm concerned. Like it or hate it, the courts interpret the laws against the Constitution. If it is the SCOTUS opinion that the 2A is an individual right, that's the bottom line. They do make decisions that I, personally, have been disappointed in like the ruling of Eminent Domain that allowed a private builder to knock down an old beach front community or gay marriage making it the law of the land. Where is the authority that says states can pick and choose what they will follow? Are we a country of 50 states bound by a constitution or are we 50 separate states prepared to thumb their noses at the constitution and their neighbors? Say what you will about "states rights" (which I believe in), there comes a point where the states must agree to accept the core precepts handed down by SCOTUS and that's that. Most certainly the liberals in this country will never, ever quit until they finally get their way and NEVER again will the issue be challenged. We, however, don't seem to have that attitude. It's time we did.