House bill would grant universal concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 states

[Quiet]

I guess it's a good thing that there's no nationally enforced state driver's license reciprocity (is there?)

I love needing non-resident licenses for every state or find states that have reciprocity with each other and learn all the laws of every state and have different rules of the road for every state and have some states be may issue states and...


Of course to fix all of this, the feds had to be in charge of it all.... except they aren't.

Anyone know how interstate driver's license reciprocity is enforced by the fedz, if it is?

 

[xtry51]

It's not. The states just accept others despite no two states drivers tests, or age for that matter, being the same.

But that's OK because a 4,000lb vehicle has never caused anyone's death.

 

[Garys]

I guess it's a good thing that there's no nationally enforced state driver's license reciprocity (is there?)

No, there isn't. A compact of state MV administrators agreed to honor each others licenses. Which means that my friend from IA could drive out here with her 14 year old son since that's the age for getting a drivers license out there.

Anyone know how interstate driver's license reciprocity is enforced by the fedz, if it is?

I think that they only get involved in CDL laws and that under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Of course Richard Nixon used an Executive Order to force all states to comply with the 55 MPH speed limit or face the loss of federal funds. Which is the same way that the 21 year age for legally buying alcohol was used to strong arm the states. I think the same thing goes for seat belt laws.

At the risk of offending people in organized crime, this is the same tactic that they use. Once you accept a money or favor, you are on the hook to them for life. It's the same with the federal government. Get them to enforce a universal drivers license, or a universal LTC, and then they set the rules. You must have THIS standard for your firearms license or we will cut off your funding for THAT federal program. The states that currently have Constitutional Carry could kiss that good bye.

I'd also expect a federally mandated list of off limits locations.

Imagine what Obama, Clinton, or worse "President Schumer" could do with that.

The Soi Disant Libertarians or libertarians here should be careful what the ask for. If this bill passes, we are all going to lose gun rights.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll deal with the various state laws and regulations on my own. There are plenty of resources to help with that. When I travel, I use an Android App called "Legal Heat".

 

[Wrench75]

We have a registry in MA. I don't think there is a national registry.

But yes. Here in MA and I bet a lot of other northern states have a list.

I don't think Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee have a clue on who own what.
Unless the gov. Went to the gun shop to collect the 4473's.

And even that does them no good in a free state if the gun was later sold FTF. Dow here all I need to sell you one of my handguns is for you to show me a drivers license that says you are 21+. I'm not required to have a bill of sale nor to keep or submit any info on the buyer. There is no record of chain of custody after it leaves the FFL.

 

[FreeWillie]

I can't support this. Anytime the .gov gets involved with anything they **** it up.

 

[Wrench75]

I guess it's a good thing that there's no nationally enforced state driver's license reciprocity (is there?)

I love needing non-resident licenses for every state or find states that have reciprocity with each other and learn all the laws of every state and have different rules of the road for every state and have some states be may issue states and...


Of course to fix all of this, the feds had to be in charge of it all.... except they aren't.

Anyone know how interstate driver's license reciprocity is enforced by the fedz, if it is?

I don't know "how" they enforce it but the law does exist. It was introduced in the early 90s when NY started arresting out of state drivers because they were under 18 and NY requires/ed someone to be 18 to get a DL. 17 and stopped for speeding in NY, arrested...

Originally it was very broadly written. As most hastily written laws are. They just cobbled together a simple law that said, a license issued by one state must be honored in all, so for a brief time gun owners exploited the obvious loophole and started carrying in other states saying "the new law says my ma LTC is good in NY" They quickly rewrote the law to apply specifically to driver's licenses.

I remember my father, who was a Lt. at the time, explaining it to me when it was all happening. It actually came up in a conversation about taking my guns to a friend's house out of state.

 

[Glockfan71]

I would have to pinch myself to see if it were all a dream.....

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

 

[ntomsw]

Anyone who supports this, is an absolute retard.

 

[Squire]

the only acceptable Federal action related to CCW would be for SCOTUS to declare that all CCW licenses are Unconstitutional, and that there are no gun free zones to boot.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk 2

 

[OfficerObie59]

You can absolutely support a right by imposing a specific punishment or making specifc punishment for violating rights or limiting power of government by act of law.

Certainly having the courts interpret the constitution correctly is also valid, but so is having the legislature make their intent clear and in conformance with the constitution.

Simply put, the states have no constitutional authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. That should be all that needs to be said, but clearly it is not as we can see ingringement today.

A the job of the federal government is to arbitrate between the states, protecting a resident in one state from abuse of power in another is certainly within the scope of their mandate. Whether that is done through the courts or legislature does not change the legitimacy of it.

Do remember that the Feds have to have a specific power delegated to them in order to enforce a specific right.

Since the 2nd Amendment has now been applied to the states via the 14th Amendment, section 5 of the 14th is the grant of power for that enforcement mechanism.

 

[cekim]

Do remember that the Feds have to have a specific power delegated to them in order to enforce a specific right.

Since the 2nd Amendment has now been applied to the states via the 14th Amendment, section 5 of the 14th is the grant of power for that enforcement mechanism.

I think people are absolutely correct to be suspicious and set a very high bar prior to supporting ANY new law. Going so far as to read it before we pass it.

I think it has been amply demonstrated both before and after the founding of this nation that actions by government that are truly in the interests of the rights of the people is the profound exception rather than the rule.

That said, my point was that dismissing this simply because it is the federal government was incorrect. It should be dismissed on its merits if it is to be dismissed. Relying too heavily on the courts will lead us to ruin as well. All aspects of governance must be used against abuse of power.