National Reciprocity...Does it have a chance?

[drgrant]

I disagree. Reciprocity is reciprocity no matter how you slice it. If "National Reciprocity" ever went through then it would mean that other states have to honor your permit in their state. The definition of "Reciprocity" is:
)

The feds -forcing- it would make it no longer reciprocity by definition, because that would make it so that some states would functionally have to accept licenses they didn't want to, which were issued on terms they don't agree with. that's hardly the definition of reciprocity. This is the reason why states like NH or ME would never accept MA's permit, for example, because MA would never honor theirs. In reciprocity things have to be mutually accepted. When one side of the equation refuses to balance out with the other, there is no reciprocity.

It's not really "mutual" either, if one party is having it rammed down their throat by the other, or by a third party.

-Mike

 

[xtry51]

I disagree. Reciprocity is reciprocity no matter how you slice it. If "National Reciprocity" ever went through then it would mean that other states have to honor your permit in their state. The definition of "Reciprocity" is:



Now, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't instead go for something called "National Carry" which could be something entirely different (and could be a trap)

Don't even try to use the definitions of words to try and legitimize this. If you're going to do that we're going to first have a long, long chat about the words regulated and militia. After that we can talk about what "shall not be infringed" means, followed by a lengthy history lesson on the commerce clause. After that you can decide whether or not definitions of words ever mattered to a politician.

 

[cekim]

Now, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't instead go for something called "National Carry" which could be something entirely different (and could be a trap)

That's the problem... Actually with both...

Reciprocity, or lack thereof, in most states is a function of "standard." Often "live fire" or not in the qualification decides whether they will honor another state's license.

If the Feds get involved, it won't just be to force reciprocity, which itself is bad, but it will likely be to "set standards."

One of the principle failings of the electorate since the civil war has been to progressively (pun intended) cede power to the central/Federal government to solve difficult societal problems rather than do the work needed to solve those problems correctly...

I guess people have not been burned badly enough by our Federal government to understand on the long time line, they are no more worthy of "trust" than the states of the deep south prior to and after the civil war WRT to civil rights...

There is a very good law on the books already, that has been ruled to be incorporated to the states that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." That's the one that we should use rather than bowing to more absurd "reasonable restrictions" that are anything but given the murderous, racist, and violent past of gun control.

There's nothing reasonable about genocide or institutional racism, nor is there any hyperbole in associating these issues - just the facts.

 

[DaveB]

How about we get rid of the '34 act and start from there.

Even better!

 

[cekim]

Even better!

If we repealed '34, I'd be there with bells on for the government auction of ATF's museum of seized hardware...

 

[Terminator03]

See, I get the point that you guys make about the Feds setting standards, and such, but what is fundamentally wrong with that if it fixes a system that is totally broken now? Unless you can do this on the federal level, there is no chance in hell that reciprocity can ever function, because all 50 states will have their own individual standards, which in this case is counterproductive to our greater cause! Some of you keep spinning your tires in the mud saying that these laws shouldn't exist, but like I said - THEY DO! So, you really have to stop living in the past, and move on toward something that at least has a chance of making this crappy system better. I'm not sure how it works with driver's licenses, but I can see no logical reason that the same principles could not be applied to a LTC. The way it is now makes absolutely no sense at all. In my case, I live less than 10 minutes from the CT border, but can't carry once I cross that imaginary line - how the heck does that make sense to anyone?

 

[Boghog1]

If we repealed '34, I'd be there with bells on for the government auction of ATF's museum of seized hardware...

We could pay off the national debt !

 

[drgrant]

See, I get the point that you guys make about the Feds setting standards, and such, but what is fundamentally wrong with that if it fixes a system that is totally broken now?

It's only broken if you're in a position where you need privs in a place you don't have them in.

If the feds take it over, it could be WORSE if they forced a minimum standard. There is a danger inherent to them doing so. There might also be a ripple effect where the laws in anti states get worse than they already are. EG, for example while states might be forced on one end, others might be motivated to pass stupid s**t like binding signage to appease moonbats...

There are a lot of unintended consequences from this kind of crap. The current system is a lot less broken than a federally forced one would be under a worst case scenario, I'll tell you that much.

which in this case is counterproductive to our greater cause!

No, it's not. You don't get it. This won't functionally increase the number of people who actually carry a gun on a daily basis. Since most people conceal, how would it do anything to affect advocacy? It wouldn't.

The number of total gun owners is not statically linked to the number of concealed carriers. The latter is a WAY smaller group than the former is. Even in places like FL, the numbers of known CCWs aren't that high on average.

-Mike

 

[xtry51]

See, I get the point that you guys make about the Feds setting standards, and such, but what is fundamentally wrong with that if it fixes a system that is totally broken now? Unless you can do this on the federal level, there is no chance in hell that reciprocity can ever function, because all 50 states will have their own individual standards, which in this case is counterproductive to our greater cause! Some of you keep spinning your tires in the mud saying that these laws shouldn't exist, but like I said - THEY DO! So, you really have to stop living in the past, and move on toward something that at least has a chance of making this crappy system better. I'm not sure how it works with driver's licenses, but I can see no logical reason that the same principles could not be applied to a LTC. The way it is now makes absolutely no sense at all. In my case, I live less than 10 minutes from the CT border, but can't carry once I cross that imaginary line - how the heck does that make sense to anyone?

This is how progressives work, they get you to give ground small steps at a time until you just say "well that's how it is, so I guess I'll just tuck tail and give in."

Don't accept sh*t and then try to act like it's a nice bouquet of flowers. It's still sh*t no matter what you want to call it. Fight the root cause of the problem, that these laws exist at all, rather than adding MORE laws to teh books that shouldn't exist and only make it easier for politicians to steal more of your freedom.

 

[Supermoto]

I'm for national reciprocity. If you are in jail, no guns. Not in Jail, Guns. Its would be very easy to determine who meets the requirement

 

[Terminator03]

It's only broken if you're in a position where you need privs in a place you don't have them in.

If the feds take it over, it could be WORSE if they forced a minimum standard. There is a danger inherent to them doing so. There might also be a ripple effect where the laws in anti states get worse than they already are. EG, for example while states might be forced on one end, others might be motivated to pass stupid s**t like binding signage to appease moonbats...

There are a lot of unintended consequences from this kind of crap. The current system is a lot less broken than a federally forced one would be under a worst case scenario, I'll tell you that much.



No, it's not. You don't get it. This won't functionally increase the number of people who actually carry a gun on a daily basis. Since most people conceal, how would it do anything to affect advocacy? It wouldn't.

The number of total gun owners is not statically linked to the number of concealed carriers. The latter is a WAY smaller group than the former is. Even in places like FL, the numbers of known CCWs aren't that high on average.

-Mike

Mike, I totally understand your points, but I don't necessarily agree with all of them. For instance, you say "It's only broken if you're in a position where you need privs in a place you don't have them in." That is the main point in my argument, because none of us law abiding, legally licensed people are recognized as being "legal" anywhere else in the country, unless you jump through hoops, and send countless fees to various states around the country, just so that you might be able to play hopscotch, and hope that you don't get caught in a state that doesn't recognize at least one of the plethora of permits you had to acquire just to mostly be legal while traveling. To me that is total bs. I'm fairly certain that the standards for a driver's license vary from state to state, but somehow, you are still able to drive wherever you want in the US, so how, or why should this be treated any differently?

 

[Terminator03]

This is how progressives work, they get you to give ground small steps at a time until you just say "well that's how it is, so I guess I'll just tuck tail and give in."

Don't accept sh*t and then try to act like it's a nice bouquet of flowers. It's still sh*t no matter what you want to call it. Fight the root cause of the problem, that these laws exist at all, rather than adding MORE laws to teh books that shouldn't exist and only make it easier for politicians to steal more of your freedom.

I also get what you are saying with regard to losing rights in small increments, but the reality is that the general public far outnumbers "us", and are primarily brainwashed that guns are bad, so without support of the majority of the citizens of this country (which will never happen), these laws WILL continue to exist. If we are forced to live with them, with no option for recourse, then why not amend them to be more workable? That is all I'm saying...

 

[EddieCoyle]

I'm not sure how it works with driver's licenses, but I can see no logical reason that the same principles could not be applied to a LTC.

You know what? I just looked through the whole Constitution and didn't see anything in there that guaranteed anybody a driver's license. Maybe I missed it.


So, under your plan, are you going to force the good people of Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona to get permits?

 

[william_munny]

So, under you plan, are you going to force the good people of Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona to now have to get permits?

Exactly, that's my problem with this. Just because it's somehow beneficial to those of us behind the iron curtain doesn't make it right. To rephrase what I said earlier in the thread, the only way I would support a national carry law would be if it dissolved all state laws on the matter and put us to the same level as those 3 states. Constitutional carry or GTFO.

 

[drgrant]

Exactly, that's my problem with this. Just because it's somehow beneficial to those of us behind the iron curtain doesn't make it right. To rephrase what I said earlier in the thread, the only way I would support a national carry law would be if it dissolved all state laws on the matter and put us to the same level as those 3 states. Constitutional carry or GTFO.

I think ultimately forced reciprocity would actually be worse, because most of the power would be sucked away from the anti states with regards to carry, and then they would flail about, going full retard, and adding all kinds of gay restrictions and the like to carry laws- basically whatever they could get away with. When the dust settles the laws might be worse in many states.

-Mike

 

[william_munny]

I think ultimately forced reciprocity would actually be worse, because most of the power would be sucked away from the anti states with regards to carry, and then they would flail about, going full retard, and adding all kinds of gay restrictions and the like to carry laws- basically whatever they could get away with. When the dust settles the laws might be worse in many states.

-Mike

That's an excellent point. It pains me to think of the retaliation laws that MA, NY, NJ, and the like would come up with if they had no say in gun licenses. The only thing that would really work would be if the SJC were to rule that both direct and indirect gun laws at the state level were off limits as well due to unconstitutionality.

Hey, I can dream, right? [sad2]

 

[JackDaniels]

I disagree. Reciprocity is reciprocity no matter how you slice it. If "National Reciprocity" ever went through then it would mean that other states have to honor your permit in their state. The definition of "Reciprocity" is:

Thats a good point. If it doesn't grant the feds the power to give or take, and it only forces reciprocity in the way that drivers licenses are recognized, then its worth thinking about. But then what about states like VT and AK who don't use a licensing system?

 

[ChargingCharlie]

Thats a good point. If it doesn't grant the feds the power to give or take, and it only forces reciprocity in the way that drivers licenses are recognized, then its worth thinking about. But then what about states like VT and AK who don't use a licensing system?

VT, AZ, & other constitutional carry states would stay the same. The only difference would be that those that want to travel to other stares (and be covered) would need to get a shall issue permit. AZ already provides this to residents...not sure about the others.

 

[lupis42]

If we repealed '34, I'd be there with bells on for the government auction of ATF's museum of seized hardware...

I'd be calling every gunsmith I know, trying to get happy switches and cans added to my modern firearms...

 

[cekim]

I'd be calling every gunsmith I know, trying to get happy switches and cans added to my modern firearms...

That too, but there is some great "history" in those vaults as well...

 

[cekim]

I'm for national reciprocity. If you are in jail, no guns. Not in Jail, Guns. Its would be very easy to determine who meets the requirement

What about politicians? You'd just let them carry willy-nilly?

 

[cekim]

You know what? I just looked through the whole Constitution and didn't see anything in there that guaranteed anybody a driver's license. Maybe I missed it.


So, under your plan, are you going to force the good people of Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona to get permits?

You are correct, but it is worth noting that the MA SJC has described driver's licenses in terms associated with "a right" that requires significantly more due process protection than we enjoy with LTCs (i.e. NONE).

 

[Climbnsink]

I repeat terrible idea. However if it was true reciprocity residents of VT(don't know about AZ or AK) would not need to get a permit to be legal in any other state. And I would switch my DL back to VT as would millions of others. Oh I'm sure someone will propose a law to cover that angle as well.

VT, AZ, & other constitutional carry states would stay the same. The only difference would be that those that want to travel to other stares (and be covered) would need to get a shall issue permit. AZ already provides this to residents...not sure about the others.

 

[sig2009]

Never gonna happen!

 

[ChargingCharlie]

However if it was true reciprocity residents of VT(don't know about AZ or AK) would not need to get a permit to be legal in any other state.

AZ residents, from what I understand, have to get an AZ permit for reciprocity in other states. That's at least how I understood it when described by a guy that lives there.

 

[DoubleDoeHoe]

I agree with this. My thought on it though is, that as long as there is licensing, your license should be honored in every state just like a driver's license is.

Ya but UNLIKE driving a vehicle owning a gun is a god given right further instituted and confirmed by the Bill of Rights. So no it SHOULDN'T be like a drivers license EVER. How about we get free speech licenses? Or All lawful purposes license so you can freely speak your mind and or swear.

Just because your brainwashed living in Mass and wanting your license, that our state requires you to pay for to exercise your god given right, to be good country wide, doesn't make it a good idea to have more Fed Gun Laws and regulation.

To OP: Why do YOU think it is good to have it be required to have a license?

 

[Boghog1]

Travel is a God given right too, why should a license be needed to travel

 

[ChargingCharlie]

Ya but UNLIKE driving a vehicle owning a gun is a god given right further instituted and confirmed by the Bill of Rights. So no it SHOULDN'T be like a drivers license EVER. How about we get free speech licenses? Or All lawful purposes license so you can freely speak your mind and or swear.

Just because your brainwashed living in Mass and wanting your license, that our state requires you to pay for to exercise your god given right, to be good country wide, doesn't make it a good idea to have more Fed Gun Laws and regulation.

To OP: Why do YOU think it is good to have it be required to have a license?

Did you mean for this to sound as douchey as it did? I'm not brainwashed at all...I don't believe we should be required to have a permit to exercise a right. What you are apparently missing is that we currently have more "rights" to own and operate a car then we have "rights" to own and operate a firearm. Whether you like it or not that is a FACT based on the CURRENT LAWS. If you actually read my previous posts (including the one you quoted), you would have seen that I said that while permits are required (which they are now) they should be valid in every state.

 

[DoubleDoeHoe]

Did you mean for this to sound as douchey as it did? I'm not brainwashed at all...I don't believe we should be required to have a permit to exercise a right. What you are apparently missing is that we currently have more "rights" to own and operate a car then we have "rights" to own and operate a firearm. Whether you like it or not that is a FACT based on the CURRENT LAWS. If you actually read my previous posts (including the one you quoted), you would have seen that I said that while permits are required (which they are now) they should be valid in every state.

YA and your missing the point the requirement is STATE LEVEL not Federal. There are states that do not require a "permit" or license of any kind to buy and own a firearm. The litigation if any should always be done at the state level not the federal level. The car thing is a ridiculous argument. No where in the US Constitution or the MA Constitution that it is your "right" to drive. In fact the DOT (Registry) is on record saying "it is a privilege not a right". I have yet to see that view the DOT has to be challenged in SC. But would be curious to see the outcome.

Maybe I needed to be a douche to see the doucheyness of it.

 

[GSG]

Reciprocity is reciprocity no matter how you slice it.

Remember that reciprocity doesn't exempt you from the Gun Free School Zones Act in reciprocal states. Even LEOSA doesn't do this. So you'd need a map of any areas you carried through to avoid all of those 1,000 foot bubbles around school properties.

Speaking of LEOSA, take a loook at that law. Despite it's passage, numerous individuals covered by it have been arrested, detained, hassled or otherwise over it. Some cops in Washington DC have gone to insane lengths to f*** with people covered by LEOSA and the laws of DC. States like Mass. and Hawaii have drafted laws and policies that are in direct conflict with the wording of LEOSA. A FLEO got arrested in Texas for carrying without a permit. And this is between members of the LE community. Like with LEOSA, in the states where you'd need national reciprocity the very most, you'd still risk a lot carrying there.

My biggest concern is that such a law would be worded like FOPA, simply a defense to criminal charges. Similar to the Mass. castle law, a "defense" wouldn't get you out of arrest, or general population and a few dozen missed mortgage payments when you can't afford bail.

Still, it would be a step in the right direction, and would probably be better than things are now.

I think ultimately forced reciprocity would actually be worse, because most of the power would be sucked away from the anti states with regards to carry, and then they would flail about, going full retard, and adding all kinds of gay restrictions and the like to carry laws- basically whatever they could get away with. When the dust settles the laws might be worse in many states.

-Mike

I think such a law could definitely backfire in this way. I'm imagining things like NYPD being issued GFSZA maps with instructions to notify ATF every time they contact someone carrying under forced reciprocity. Other LE agencies are coached in similar methods with NFA/FIP laws and such.

Thats a good point. If it doesn't grant the feds the power to give or take, and it only forces reciprocity in the way that drivers licenses are recognized, then its worth thinking about. But then what about states like VT and AK who don't use a licensing system?

Alaska is like AZ, optional LTC for reciprocity and peace of mind in FTF deals. Vermont, Wisconsin and Illinois are the only states with zero legal provision for any carry permit. Other states like HI or NJ have permits written into law, but as a rule they're never issued.

Never gonna happen!

I disagree. The last one lost by what, 2 votes?