National Reciprocity

It's worth it to write to all of them since this is a national subcommittee. If they are willing to listen to people they should be listening to everyone, not just their constituents since not all states are represented by the subcommittee.

I got some very good responses from state reps who were not affiliated with my district at all when I was writing against the Maine AWB that was proposed earlier this year.

CD
 
This kind of leads me to something I was thinking about posting... It would be nice to see the actual composition of these letters from other folks.

Maybe if there was a sticky somewhere, that people could post copy's of the letters they have written to their reps, it would make it easier for others to use their format, and some wording. If it's a faster process to get the letters out, perhaps more would be likely to send the letters in.

Just a thought.

Adam
 
That is a good thought. I know that I sometimes sit on a letter or e-mail for some time to see if I think that it will sound good.

One thing, even if you take a letter that someone else writes, you should always change up the wording. That way they feel that someone just didn't send out a mass mailing. They are likely to be more receptive if they believe that it was written by the person that sent it than just a form letter.


And it would also be nice to have a place where we can post responces from reps and how they feel.

Almost like a Postal board, or Gun Shop board.

One thread per constituent, and what you heard from them, or what you wrote them.
 
Good idea guys. I'll post a sticky in this forum. Please keep it to letters regarding gun laws however. They can be either Fed or State letters.

Mother
 
When is this going to happen? I'm so sick of the NRA boo-hooing all the time about needing more money "so your guns won't be confiscated". They badger me by mail, phone(until I put call blocking on all their numbers), and what have they done? If they want more money, why don't they go to their benefactors like Chareton Heston with his millions, instead of the "little guy". Supposedly a "gun friendly Republican ruled" Congress, a gun friendly President and Vice-President, and no major legislation passed for gun owners. What's happened to the National Reciprocity Act? It goes Bye-bye like everything else the NRA professes to support while they have your money. I've given up on the NRA and instead support grassroots organizations like the Gun Owners of NH. They get bills passed by having an extremely gun friendly legislature and AG.
 
Realistically...

...is there anything we can do to help this along?

Logically, it seems like we should concentrate on more immediate problems, like the capricious issuance criteria that varies from chief to chief, the AG's capricious "consumer protection" criteria as a thinly-veiled disincentive to lawful gun ownership (aside: "capricious" really does seem to apply to a lot of the gun-related policies around here, doesn't it?), etc.

Unfortunately, if we're consistently on defense, we'll never make any real progress because we'll always be working against strong anti-gun forces to keep the rights we still have.

Is there anything we can do to go on the offense? State initiatives seem to go nowhere because the legislature is basically single-party and profoundly anti-gun. I'm surprised we have even discretionary CCW!

The national CCW reciprocity issue seems like a logical one with at least some potential traction: after all, could you imagine a nation in which driver's licenses weren't respected universally by other states? Furthermore, given the proliferation of shall-issue CCW laws over the past ten years, this actually stands a chance of passing at the national level, which would then put states like MA, CA, RI, NY, NJ, MD, etc. on the defense... and make it difficult for them to sustain policies against shall-issue CCW given that non-residents would be entitled to carry regardless of the locals' opinions.

Thoughts?

My concerns about the proposed legislation are twofold: (a) it should contain some provision nullifying the "consumer protection" restrictions of idiots like Reilly that could effectively neuter the law; and (b) it absolutely must provide a minimum safe harbor standard for legal carry, so states like our beloved PRM can't simply make legal carry valid only in one's own home to skirt the safe harbor for states with no legal CCW.

BTW, great forum. This and THR are at the top of my bookmarks now.

Cheers,
Kyle
 
I hate to be a party pooper, but I don't believe this will ever pass.

As my Pappy used to say, "Follow the money."

This bill would do away with non resident licenses as they would not be needed. No NR licenses, no money for the state/politicians.
 
I'm a life member of the NRA. I too got sick of them asking for money so I called them and told them not do that any more. They removed me from the those lists. You don't have to give up on them entirely, just ask them not to send you the usual marketing materials asking for money.

This way, I contribute a few bucks to them when I want to but otherwise I'm not bothered. And I am a life member already so I've given a significant amount of money.

But I do not want to be cut off from the NRA either. They are much too useful. We need an organization as large and powerful as them.

Buffalo Bill said:
When is this going to happen? I'm so sick of the NRA boo-hooing all the time about needing more money "so your guns won't be confiscated". They badger me by mail, phone(until I put call blocking on all their numbers), and what have they done? If they want more money, why don't they go to their benefactors like Chareton Heston with his millions, instead of the "little guy". Supposedly a "gun friendly Republican ruled" Congress, a gun friendly President and Vice-President, and no major legislation passed for gun owners. What's happened to the National Reciprocity Act? It goes Bye-bye like everything else the NRA professes to support while they have your money. I've given up on the NRA and instead support grassroots organizations like the Gun Owners of NH. They get bills passed by having an extremely gun friendly legislature and AG.
 
This might pass at some point but it would not affect how MA handles its licenses for its residents. MA will do whatever it wants in that regard and nothing the feds can do will help with that. If you're a gun owner in MA, you're dependent on your local police chief for whatever rights you have. If he or she doesn't like the idea of peasants owning firearms then you are screwed.


squarooticus said:
...is there anything we can do to help this along?

Logically, it seems like we should concentrate on more immediate problems, like the capricious issuance criteria that varies from chief to chief, the AG's capricious "consumer protection" criteria as a thinly-veiled disincentive to lawful gun ownership (aside: "capricious" really does seem to apply to a lot of the gun-related policies around here, doesn't it?), etc.

Unfortunately, if we're consistently on defense, we'll never make any real progress because we'll always be working against strong anti-gun forces to keep the rights we still have.

Is there anything we can do to go on the offense? State initiatives seem to go nowhere because the legislature is basically single-party and profoundly anti-gun. I'm surprised we have even discretionary CCW!

The national CCW reciprocity issue seems like a logical one with at least some potential traction: after all, could you imagine a nation in which driver's licenses weren't respected universally by other states? Furthermore, given the proliferation of shall-issue CCW laws over the past ten years, this actually stands a chance of passing at the national level, which would then put states like MA, CA, RI, NY, NJ, MD, etc. on the defense... and make it difficult for them to sustain policies against shall-issue CCW given that non-residents would be entitled to carry regardless of the locals' opinions.

Thoughts?

My concerns about the proposed legislation are twofold: (a) it should contain some provision nullifying the "consumer protection" restrictions of idiots like Reilly that could effectively neuter the law; and (b) it absolutely must provide a minimum safe harbor standard for legal carry, so states like our beloved PRM can't simply make legal carry valid only in one's own home to skirt the safe harbor for states with no legal CCW.

BTW, great forum. This and THR are at the top of my bookmarks now.

Cheers,
Kyle
 
JellyFish said:
This might pass at some point but it would not affect how MA handles its licenses for its residents. MA will do whatever it wants in that regard and nothing the feds can do will help with that. If you're a gun owner in MA, you're dependent on your local police chief for whatever rights you have. If he or she doesn't like the idea of peasants owning firearms then you are screwed.
It would, however, make moving to NH and working in MA a worthwhile prospect for those interested in CCW, because they could then carry to work and MA would have no say in the matter.

As a brief aside...

On most issues, I'm very much in favor of federalism. E.g., as much as I find it annoying not to be able to buy beer in convenience stores, Massachusetts should in fact have the right to restrict the points of sale of alcohol within its borders if its citizens elect representatives who are in favor of that admittedly asinine practice.

However, the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment combine (pretty clearly, by my reading) into a nationwide right of the citizens of this country to keep and bear arms, which I would argue must include concealed carry, and should include open carry. Thus, I don't feel I'm being a hypocrite in advocating the position of nationwide CCW reciprocity.

Cheers,
Kyle
 
squarooticus said:
...is there anything we can do to help this along?

You bet there is, Kyle. We can all support candidates for congress, like Rick Barton, www.rickbarton.us , who are pro Second Amendment unlike any of our current 10 Reps from MA . He needs our financial support as all of the 10 currently in office have not had to fight for re-election for years and have built up huge campaign funds. Even if you are not living in his district we need to support him to break the continual single party, liberal, anti-gun representation from MA. A simple 15 seat change in party control this election will give the House back to the Dems, and then we face Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, no friend of the Second Amendment. Locally we need to support Larry Frisoli for AG, ( www.larryfrisoli.com ). He has pledged to undo the BS consumer protection restrictions which Reilly has imposed on us. If we don't get involved any more than this forum, come Nov 8, we may be looking at the real posssibility of losing more of our Second Amendment rights.
 
I know this is an old thread, but I don't see how the Federal govt has the authority to make MA or any state honor another state's LTC permit. It's a nice idea, but unless the supreme court issues an interpretation of the second amendment declaring it an individual right outside their home and declares LTC permit restrictions unconstitutional, or ties it to interstate commerce somehow, I don't see the legality of forcing one state to abide by another state's permit of any kind.

Like LenS said, look at the history for the LEO bill and the state's response. MA has allowed off duty LEO of other states to carry concealed for a while, but still doesn't recognise retired LEOs. to the best of my knowledge.
 
Last edited:
I know this is an old thread, but I don't see how the Federal govt has the authority to make MA or any state honor another state's LTC permit. It's a nice idea, but unless the supreme court issues an interpretation of the second amendment declaring it an individual right outside their home and declares LTC permit restrictions unconstitutional, or ties it to interstate commerce somehow, I don't see the legality of forcing one state to abide by another state's permit of any kind.

Article. IV.

[Section 1.] Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And
the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

It's the same reason that you're not forced to get a non-resident marriage license for every state you and your spouse happen to visit.

Ken
 
Yes. that is true about the marriage license, but there are states do that recognise MA gay marriage licenses. They have the option to recognize it or not, and many don't. Even the Fed govt doesn't recognise it. So it's the same legal issue. MA or anybody else doesn't have to recognize another states carry permit.
 
Given that each state sets it's own requirements to issue a LTC, and MA has a law that allows recognizing another LTC if the state has the same requirements that MA has, which none do,

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State "

credit given for a different requirement and process in MA eyes doesn't involve full credit to carry a weapon, since MA uses more stringent requirements. That is how they get around it, and that is how other states don't recognize Gay Marriages done in MA.
 
MA has no other recourse than to accept the retired LEO under the bill. They can whine and carry on, but the result would be a civil suit. To date, I have not heard of any state refusing to accept the terms of the legislation, if all the standards are met.

Len was right when he said some states can make it difficult to qualify under the standards of the LEOSA. But many are coming around under pressure from the LE groups. Even NYC has set up procedures for their retired people. NJ has had a system in place before the bill was signed but for different reasons.

The only reason the bill passed was that a massive amount of co-sponsors jumped on board. Might have been a result of 9-11, who knows.
 
Actually both the other states and the federal government do have to accept valid marriage licenses issued in Massachusetts to same-sex couples. They can have laws or constitutional provisions stating that marriage is only between one man and one woman; they can refuse to issue a license to a resident, but otherwise indistinguishable couple; but they have to accept it. We pretty much cleared this up back in the 50's when some states still refused to allow "mixed race" marriages. They have to recognize the same legal status with regard to insurance, retirement benefits, community property, inheritance, and everything else that would automatically exist for a "normal" one man-one woman marriage. And just as Massachusetts has more stringent requirements for an LTC than other states have for their equivalent, some states require waiting periods, blood tests and other hoops through which couples are required to jump before they'll grand a marraige license. States can't simply say, "OK you've got the license which we'll recognize, but you still have to wait two weeks and submit to a blood test before we'll fully recognize the marriage."

Ken
 
Actually both the other states and the federal government do have to accept valid marriage licenses issued in Massachusetts to same-sex couples. They can have laws or constitutional provisions stating that marriage is only between one man and one woman; they can refuse to issue a license to a resident, but otherwise indistinguishable couple; but they have to accept it. We pretty much cleared this up back in the 50's when some states still refused to allow "mixed race" marriages. They have to recognize the same legal status with regard to insurance, retirement benefits, community property, inheritance, and everything else that would automatically exist for a "normal" one man-one woman marriage. ......
Ken

Somebody needs to tell the IRS then.

"Then there's the federal government. For federal tax purposes, alimony is normally deductible for the person paying and counted as income for the person on the receiving end. But same-sex marriages have no standing in the eyes of the IRS. ''We don't recognize gay marriages," said IRS spokeswoman Peggy Riley. Same-sex couples need to file as single people, rather than as a couple, she said, and they can't enjoy the alimony deduction"

Not that I have any involvement in this, not that there is anything wrong with that.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/01/29/the_gay_divorcees/


"Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch broke new ground in February 2007 with a legal opinion that would make Rhode Island the first state to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in Massachusetts. The opinion was sought after three Rhode Island state employees who married same-sex partners in Massachusetts asked for a change of marriage status in their personnel files."

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=20695



You may think they have to recognize other states documents, but they don't do it. They don't do it if they don't want to. States want to for drivers licenses and opposite sex marriage licenses, but they don't for same sex marriage licenses and TLC permits. I'm not argueing right or wrong, I'm just saying it isn't cut and dry when it comes to states rights. The FED govt can not legislate what states can and can't do unless it's about interstate commerce or the constitution. They can withhold fed money for noncompliance, and they can regulate interstate commerce, like the minimum wage, and constitutionally the supreme court can render decisions that effect the states.
 
Last edited:
Well, even Congress has a hard time getting the IRS's attention. They'll do and claim pretty much whatever they want. As soon as anyone decides there's enough money (or principle) at stake on this one, the Tax Court will inform the IRS of the error of its ways.

As for RI, they're simply considering formalizing the reality they face. None of this stuff happens magically and instantaneously. Legal advisors in the state legislature and administration look at the situation and conclude that they'll have to recognize them, then the politicians either start their slow move to comply with reality or they decide to engage in some theatrics for their supportors before getting slapped down by the courts.

It's very much the same with the interstate travel provisions of FOPA. Most states took a look and accepted reality. NJ decided to to act tough until their AG decided it was going to end up costing them badly. A couple of jurisdictions in NY still feel the need to pis on the electric fence for themselves.

Ken
 
I think that having a permit more like a drivers license would be more feasible. At least for this argument. Each state doesn't require you to have a "Non Resident DL" for each state that you plan on driving through.

Exactly my feeling, since cars kill way more people than guns do every year. And I wish people had to pass driving tests as stringent as the NRA basic pistol safety course. There'd be a lot less lunacy on the roads. First rule: ALWAYS KEEP THE CAR POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION. [laugh]
 
Back
Top Bottom