CCW National Reciprocity

C

CAPTAIN MIKE

New member
from GOA Alert email...
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) will soon be reintroducing his national reciprocity bill that protects the right of citizens to carry their firearms into other states.

Hostettler's language has a huge advantage over other reciprocity-type bills in that it does not punish states for being too pro-gun. His bill would not penalize citizens from states like Alaska and Vermont, because his proposal doesn't require a citizen to first get a permit to enjoy reciprocity in another state.

Most carry bills in Congress seek to establish reciprocity ONLY between gun control states. These bills force people to jump through officially-mandated hurdles and get carry permits before they can carry firearms into neighboring states.

But now that more and more states are debating whether to adopt Alaska/Vermont style carry laws, it is important that the federal government NOT penalize citizens from those states.

Rep. Hostettler's bill, known as the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act, is just what America needs. His draft would allow law-abiding citizens who can legally carry in their home state -- even without a permit -- to carry all across the country.

And, of course, for those gun owners who already HAVE concealed carry permits, the SAFE Act will provide complete nationwide reciprocity.

ACTION: Please ask your Representative to cosponsor Rep. Hostettler's concealed carry bill, the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005. This bill -- which will probably be introduced on Thursday, so it doesn't yet have a bill number! -- will guarantee Americans the ability to carry firearms from one state into the next.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message.
 
Congress interprets the commerce clause to mean anything they want it to, other than the plain meaning of the words.
 
Alaric

Yes they do, but more importantly the Supreme Court usually upholds it. The overreaching use of the Comerce Clause is not going to change anytime soon (Stewart notwithstanding) so we may as well get used to it and learn how to benefit from it. Make no mistake, I'm not happy about the expansion of federal regulatory power through the Commerce Clause, but I'm a realist and know its not going to change. That being the case I see no reason why we gunowners shouldn't use the Commerce Clause to our own benefit. Its been used against us for years; its time we made it work FOR us.
 
It is sad, but that's the truth.

In a perfect world, The Bill of Rights would apply to ALL citizens, ANYwhere they may live.
 
Normally I'm against putting this on a Federal footing. It's a slippery slope. Once Congress passes a National Reciprocity, they are one step closer to realization that CCW is a privilege, not a right, nationwide.

In this case, however, it's an affirmation that the home rights of a citizen travel with him from State to State. Good stuff.
Rich
 
Rich I agree

While I feel my VA CHL should cover me under the Full Faith and Credit clause that angle isn't working. Do you think NYC will ever allow me to carry with out the US Congress stepping in and forcing them to? I think not.
 
Can one of you dual-federalist naysayers please explain why the 2nd and 14th Amendments alone don't confer to the Congress all the authority necessary to pass this law?
 
Can one of you dual-federalist naysayers please explain why the 2nd and 14th Amendments alone don't confer to the Congress all the authority necessary to pass this law?
Click to expand...

First off, upon what Constitutional grant of authority in Art. I section 8 would Congress premise such legislation? The power to borrow money?

Second, whether we like it or not, the 2nd has never been held incorporated to the states through the 14th by the Supreme Court. But you knew that alerady, otherwise you wouldn't have asked. At least in my opinion, the SC hasn't shown any signs or indications of a willingness to hold the 2nd Amendment incorporated through the 14th Amendment. Have you seen any recent cases that indicate a desire by the SC to finally adopt a total incorporation theory? Call me a naysayer, but I just don't see it happening anytime soon, and even if they do, it will be severely limited and subject to the lowest level of Constitutional scrutiny so the states can violate it almost as freely as they do now. If you think the 2nd Amendment will ever be subject to strict scrutiny as political speech (at least in our lifetime) I think you need to remove the rose colored glasses.

Selective incorporation being a fact of life, at least for now, if such a bill were passed extending the Constitutional authority of the 2nd Amendment to the states, how long do you think it would take a liberal state AG like Lockyer to contest its validity in court? At that point we'd be right back to fighting over the incorporation of the 2nd, which as I've stated previously, I don't see happening anytime soon. Thus, I think the best way to achieve our goal would be to simply do it under the guise of promoting and protecting interstate commerce, which if written properly, would be very difficult to challenge in court.
 
States rights v. Federal rights is a slippery slope, indeed. It led to a Supreme Court decision about the 2000 election with very questionable integrity on the part of the Justices involved. I'm having trouble imagining folks who would support the right of citizens to carry their firearms into another state also supporting the rights of a gay couple to take their marriage to another state. And vice versa. Almost everybody I've talked to about this States v. Feds rights issue is hypocritical and shifts their position according to the topic of the moment. Myself included. Bobby Kennedy finds a legal way for the Feds to combat institutionalized racism in the South. Liberals yell, "Good!" Conservatives yell, "Bad!" Conservatives on Supreme Court decide they are not so against Fed power after all in 2000 Election decision, Conservatives yell "Yes!", Liberals yell, "No!"
IMO, Shaggy's right, using interstate commerce would give the most firm legal ground.
 
This is a legal and legislative perversion.

It is not just a matter of jurisdiction; the Federal government can not pass a law "allowing" anything. We have a jurisprudence based on prohibition. The Federal government can legislate exceptions to existing prohibitions; but there is no Federal prohibition on the private possession or carrying of handguns as personal property for one's own use within any exclusive jurisdiction of the States.

For the Federal government to "compell" the States to do anything with legal force requires an amendment to the Constitution.

The only way the Federal government can force the compliance of any State on this matter, is through a SCOTUS challenge under the full faith and credit clause by a citizen carrying out of their home State. Otherwise this is simply going to rely on the passive compliance of all States concerned. It is a farce, and a dangerous one; it will further this idea that the Federal government can simply legislate State compliance on anything with Congressional consensus.
 
I'm all for it. What would it do for New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Illinois, Chicago, NYC, California, Kansas City, St Louis, etc where law abiding citizens are denied 2nd Amendment rights? I think that would be a real battle even if national reciprocity passes.
 
Right now I would settle for having carry rights in all of the 35 states that have shall issue.

Even if it means having to sit in a class to get edumicated. A national RTC agreement between the states would be nice. Set some standards and get it done.

Pa and Texas just agreed on reciprocity, why can't all 35 states agree with each other. Why do I have to get a Florida license to carry in the RTC states that border PA?
 
Lak

As long as the federal legislation does not require any expenditure from the states in following the federal legislation (as was the problem in Printz), the feds can compel the states to, at a minimum, recognize a federal standard. That federal standard can be the home state standard for a resident of any of the 50 states. IOW, like the recently passed law that provides national carry for LEOs, the feds can compel a state to recognize a lawful CCW of another. Make no mistake, however, this would not be a matter of the FF&C clause as the 2nd Amendment is not considered to be a "fundamental right", but rather a matter of protecting interstate commerce. The regulation of interstate commerce is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction. By recognizing the lawful carry of arms by law abiding citizens helps promote and protect interstate commerce, the feds can prohibit that states from interfering in interstate commerce by refusing to recognize the lawful CCW of another state.
 
OOPS. I mispoke...I need a Florida and Virginia permit to carry in bordering states. W Va only accepts Va permits.

This is IMHO stoopid...Why not a Federal permit that would do the proper background checks and require training that the states would be encouraged to honor. NY, Cali, NJ, MD, Ill and the other lefty states could still refuse but the real america would accept and recognize the permit.

I would apply for one, I already have gone through the Pistol Permit "Experience" in Metro NY and that is probably more intense than any other firearms permit investigation.

I remember the attitude of gun store clerks in NY changed immediately when they found out you were a permit holder. It meant fewer hassels for them. They knew I was one of the "Good Guys" because of the scrutiny I went through to get the permit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top