xtry51
NES Member
That decision is completely at odds with 80 years of SCOTUS and means nothing. If it did, the ATF wouldn't exist anymore and everything's going back to CGA34 would have been struck down.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
National Concealed Carry
- Thread starter scottb
- Start date
That decision is completely at odds with 80 years of SCOTUS and means nothing. If it did, the ATF wouldn't exist anymore and everything's going back to CGA34 would have been struck down.
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
Most people don't realize is that the federal government was not involved in driver's license reciprocity, it was an interstate compact. As they stand now both driver's license and carry permit reciprocity are the same. The only thing different between them is every state has agreed to every other states driver's licenses. The federal government did not set licensing requirements or force states to accept driver's licenses from other states.
Last edited:
xtry51
NES Member
Exactly.
As much as as I would like to have national reciprocity, I completely agree that the federal government should not get involved. We need a MUCH, MUCH smaller federal government than we currently have. Leave this one to the states where it belongs.
I was disgusted to learn recently that government employees outnumber manufacturing workers by 10 Million.'
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...s-now-outnumber-manufacturing-workers-9977000
Garys
NES Member
This is the quid pro quo with the NRA to get the endorsement. Even if he follows through exactly as that is written, he'll face considerable opposition from politicians of both parties.
Just a thought on how we may be able to get rid of the state to state BS without creating more risk at the fed level.
If a minor change to fed firearms law was made "No state shall, through statute, policy, or practice, restrict the possession, sale. or transfer of firearms, ammunition, or loading devices (mags) beyond that which is specifically stated in <insert fed laws here>. And this shall be applied equally to both residents of the state and residents of any other state." Basically an expressed preemption clause.
This would leave the matter of permits in the hands of the states and remove any extra conditions. The thought process being (not saying I agree) that a permit ensures compliance but it does not actually add any restriction(s).
Yes, there is still the very real risk of a negative change in fed law. But we live with this now and this change wouldn't increase it. On the other hand it is a small step in the right direction. And while big changes may sound good, they are very unlikely to happen. This is a battle of little steps, not sweeping changes. The Anti side knows this and has used it successfully, we need to use the same process.
As a side note, I would think some of the current state laws, particularly MA, would fail a "field preemption" test. Anyone know if a state firearms law has ever been brought before any court on this basis?
If a minor change to fed firearms law was made "No state shall, through statute, policy, or practice, restrict the possession, sale. or transfer of firearms, ammunition, or loading devices (mags) beyond that which is specifically stated in <insert fed laws here>. And this shall be applied equally to both residents of the state and residents of any other state." Basically an expressed preemption clause.
This would leave the matter of permits in the hands of the states and remove any extra conditions. The thought process being (not saying I agree) that a permit ensures compliance but it does not actually add any restriction(s).
Yes, there is still the very real risk of a negative change in fed law. But we live with this now and this change wouldn't increase it. On the other hand it is a small step in the right direction. And while big changes may sound good, they are very unlikely to happen. This is a battle of little steps, not sweeping changes. The Anti side knows this and has used it successfully, we need to use the same process.
As a side note, I would think some of the current state laws, particularly MA, would fail a "field preemption" test. Anyone know if a state firearms law has ever been brought before any court on this basis?
Congress and the President don't have the authority to mandate reciprocity. The fact that state honor each others' driver's licenses is because they've all signed on to an interstate compact to do so. The correct analogy would be for all 50 state to sign on to compact where they agree to recognize each other's carry licenses. Good luck.
Even if it was constitutional, as others have mentioned, you really don't want the federal government to do this. It's a massive federal overreach.
Garys
NES Member
All of this would be moot if the other Justices had agreed with Justice Thomas in McDonald when he said that it should have been decided on the "Privileges or Immunities" clause in the 14th Amendment.
Slauighterhouse was wrongly decided way back then and the Court missed a chance to remedy that.
Slauighterhouse was wrongly decided way back then and the Court missed a chance to remedy that.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 23,953
- Likes
- 30,091
It'll never pass because the only people it applies to really are restricted states. Most of the Midwest recriporcates and has no restrictions.
but it was an important talking point for him to seem like a knowledgeable pro 2a candidate
Lank
NES Member
If real Americans occupy 2/3 of house and senate this can be done. Or if real Americans direct their state legislatures....
- - - Updated - - -
Wait, didn't real America just vote in Trump? YES
Garys
NES Member
Once you get out of the northeast (not including PA) there is a lot of cross state recognition. Even VA, which is run by shit bag McAullife, recognizes every other states permits. VT, because it has no licenses, does the same by default. No other New England state recognizes any other New England states license.
With the exception of FL and SC, I can carry anywhere in the south much of the west. Look at the states down there that recognize every other states license.
As you point out, it's a NE problem that the other states don't consider a priority.
With the exception of FL and SC, I can carry anywhere in the south much of the west. Look at the states down there that recognize every other states license.
As you point out, it's a NE problem that the other states don't consider a priority.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,924
- Likes
- 23,529
Not entirely true, ME has Con Carry AND recognizes NH PRL. VT, no license requirement, anyone can carry there. NH, anyone can carry there too, you just have to hop around some annoyance, for now. So really it is just MA, CT, and RI that are the problem. Although, IIRC, RI accepts MA LTC if you are passing through. So, really it's mostly just MA and CT (admittedly I don't know anything about CT's laws, just making assumptions).
Been traveling so I just caught up. The only entity that can protect our constitutional rights is the federal government. That is its mandate. It's done a piss poor job of it of course, but that was, and is, it's mandate. Counting on the States to fix the current mess of interstate gun laws will result in no changes based on current laws and history. One could argue the restrictions will become more onerous, based on very recent history (check out what CA passed Tuesday). Am I happy about this entire situation? No. I agree with everyone on this thread about what 'should' be. I'm looking at what is. We had a war over the preeminence of States rights and the Feds won out. That is where the battle will be won or lost ultimately because some states will never recognize our fundamental rights e.g. MA, CA, NJ, MD, CT, etc. This does not deny the great work that state orgs like COMM2A and GOAL do, but as history shows, States will attempt to thwart their own courts and citizens, in most attempts to return rights because they have almost unlimited funds (ours) and an apparent lust for power over the masses. Again - I am not advocating an expansion of the Feds size and powers, I am (and we should) demand they do their job to protect out fundamental constitutional rights.
On a side note: The Heller decision, and most controversial decisions from the SC involve compromise. It's is absolutely clear that Scalia was completely on the side of history and ultimately on 'our' side; but he needed 5 votes - and if he didn't get 5 votes - his exhaustive recounting of the history of the RKBA would have been the losing minority rebuttal instead of the foundation of McDonald. Heller a terrible decision? Hardly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On a side note: The Heller decision, and most controversial decisions from the SC involve compromise. It's is absolutely clear that Scalia was completely on the side of history and ultimately on 'our' side; but he needed 5 votes - and if he didn't get 5 votes - his exhaustive recounting of the history of the RKBA would have been the losing minority rebuttal instead of the foundation of McDonald. Heller a terrible decision? Hardly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So if there was an option to apply for a federal 50 state license to carry, you wouldn't apply for it?
I don't support a Federalized concealed carry concept of any kind because it gives the Fed way too much control, but I do absolutely support a reciprocity law. Sure, it might be more difficult, but it retains the balance of power with the states, but gives us the opportunity to be able to carry anywhere. There's still some diligence due on the part of the individual to know what guns he can legally carry in specific states, but it sure beats putting all of the power into the hands of the Fed.
The only way this idea would work and not be a complete dumpster fire is if there's a national reciprocity permit specification and states are NOT prohibited from having their own original permits and can offer the fed compliant permit as an enhanced.
Also, even if this did happen, anyone thinks that the shit problem states would honor it is being delusional. NY, NJ, etc, would make it sufficiently aggravating that carrying there would still be pretty much unusable, at least in practical terms. I doubt there would be anything in such a law that would prohibit them from having inane restrictions, or making you sit on the side of a road for an hour while they "call it in to get the permit checked". They've already been doing similar things with LEOSA cred holders. I'd much rather see FOPA simply beefed up so that it covers "guns and any related accessories such as ammunition, magazines, etc" and also makes it a federal felony for LE to wrongfully arrest or unnecessarily detain someone simply for the "crime" of transporting firearms under FOPA.
-Mike
The very real risk is that a state gets lazy and just votes to convert their entire license over to "the federal standard" and doesn't want to adopt a regular and an enhanced license. Then the bar gets raised for people that didn't consent to it.
-Mike
National reciprocity could work if you use the commerce clause in the Constitution. I know, I know, that clause. It very well be another "camel got it's nose under the tent" but I don't see it happening any other way.
It doesn't expand government per se, but it could set dangerous precedent come mid-terms or some other point in the future where a Dem-controlled Congress and WH abolish the new law that established it.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." -- Thomas Jefferson
It doesn't expand government per se, but it could set dangerous precedent come mid-terms or some other point in the future where a Dem-controlled Congress and WH abolish the new law that established it.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." -- Thomas Jefferson
The other thought I had is that while the individual state licenses have been regularly under the authority of that state, the REAL ID act totally flipped it to the feds in a sense.
At any rate, the easiest way to get National Reciprocity on the books for us peons is to do this:
Modify a single line in LEOSA so it also includes another classification of individuals. Right now it includes two classifications: Current LEOs and retired LEOs.
Am I missing something?
At any rate, the easiest way to get National Reciprocity on the books for us peons is to do this:
Modify a single line in LEOSA so it also includes another classification of individuals. Right now it includes two classifications: Current LEOs and retired LEOs.
Am I missing something?
Ha, just reading this now.
And LEOSA protects pre-existing state statutes when it comes to magazine capacity limits. In other words, a current or retired sworn officer from NH travels to MA. He can't bring a 11+ magazine into MA without running afoul of MA state law - unless MA law carves out exceptions specifically for LEOs.
ProGun
NES Member
There you go! Just add something about duly licensed permit holders, etc.
