strangenh
NES Member
I'll add another, different negative to Rob's point.
A universal license standard where Congress sets the minimum. If we give the feds the power to regulate what minimum must be met for reciprocity outright, the antis will use it to destroy viable reciprocity the moment they get into power. We need to haul the federal government away from being the nanny. The minimum will too soon be 400 hours of training, $500 fee per year, fingerprints and (who knows?) DNA registration or whatever "Gun REAL-ID" will require, annual qualification with each firearm you want to use and a $200 fee per firearm registered on testing.
Better to have them pass a law making it a civil rights offense for states and their agents to violate - with regard to carry - the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 - "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Historically held to prevent a state from discriminating against people from out of state with regard to basic rights - a basic right is what the right to carry stands just one Supreme Court case away from being recognized as; it is the next big case, almost certainly (Neither McD nor Heller quite went all the way there).). Wait for it, guys. We aren't going to get a better law out of Congress than the 2nd Amendment itself under Supreme Court precedent regarding carry is going to provide. Even if the Court still permits very controlled licensing like MI, MA, and NY, states without any kind of reciprocity or general non-res permit like NY will still have the issue be subject to the P&I clause, and will (a very fast trip to fed court later) be ordered to open up reciprocity or an actual avenue to non-res permits that isn't more burdensome than their own residents have. Same with IL, and so on. The slow route results in lasting change. The fast route will eventually guarantee a standard that is as hard on gun owners as they can get in short order.
And after that, we can expect to see cases addressing the very restrictions Rob talks about - as constitutional matters.
A universal license standard where Congress sets the minimum. If we give the feds the power to regulate what minimum must be met for reciprocity outright, the antis will use it to destroy viable reciprocity the moment they get into power. We need to haul the federal government away from being the nanny. The minimum will too soon be 400 hours of training, $500 fee per year, fingerprints and (who knows?) DNA registration or whatever "Gun REAL-ID" will require, annual qualification with each firearm you want to use and a $200 fee per firearm registered on testing.
Better to have them pass a law making it a civil rights offense for states and their agents to violate - with regard to carry - the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 - "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Historically held to prevent a state from discriminating against people from out of state with regard to basic rights - a basic right is what the right to carry stands just one Supreme Court case away from being recognized as; it is the next big case, almost certainly (Neither McD nor Heller quite went all the way there).). Wait for it, guys. We aren't going to get a better law out of Congress than the 2nd Amendment itself under Supreme Court precedent regarding carry is going to provide. Even if the Court still permits very controlled licensing like MI, MA, and NY, states without any kind of reciprocity or general non-res permit like NY will still have the issue be subject to the P&I clause, and will (a very fast trip to fed court later) be ordered to open up reciprocity or an actual avenue to non-res permits that isn't more burdensome than their own residents have. Same with IL, and so on. The slow route results in lasting change. The fast route will eventually guarantee a standard that is as hard on gun owners as they can get in short order.
And after that, we can expect to see cases addressing the very restrictions Rob talks about - as constitutional matters.
