Constitutional CCW Reciprcity

[wayneinFL]

What im saying is if you cant qual on a fairly BASIC shooting test. Maybe i dont want you banging off rounds in a parking lot cause you were getting mugged and hitting one of my loved ones

Everyone trains to the situations they expect to encounter, and in the parameters they feel comfortable performing in. You might be comfortable hitting a bank robber at 25 yards in a stressful situation. Some old man might want a belly gun to literally put in someone's belly if he's robbed at the ATM. Does he really need to qualify to the same standard you do?

But this is where I'm getting at with the concept of different levels of licenses. If you drive a Honda in Florida, you get a class E driver's license and you're good to go. If you want to drive a semi all over the country, you need a Class A license, and some federal regulations kick in- for example, you need a DOT physical.

Why not have a plain old state license that covers you in your state and similar states- then add to that system a national license to cover all 50 states, but requires additional training?

 

[Spats McGee]

This may result in me getting a spanking but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, What's the difference between a CCL and a drivers license? I can drive coast to coast with my drivers license I only need to change it if I change my state of residence. Doesn't the constitution require the states to recognize the laws of other states? I can see if I move I need a new license for that state but passing threw? Seems like they should have to honor my home state license whether it's a drivers license or a CCL, I know it's not but sure seems like it should be.
Also does this line just not count in all this?
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"
Well several states offer CCL? What about the rest of them?

No, the Constitution does not require recognition of other states' DLs. That's done through the Driver License Compact, voluntarily adopted by states. If you'll: (a) check this out; and (b) run a search on this forum for "privileges and immunities," you'll find lots of information.

 

[Don P]

The second problem arises when someone from out of state doesn't know every wrinkle of local law. Consider Illinois' ban on carry aboard public transit. Folks are going to get busted for things they don't know are illegal, and this law doesn't protect them.

Boy, did open the can of worms starting this thread.
With the above quote as example and indulge me a bit.
This is with regards to motor vehicle law.
I obtained my DL in NYC. NY law is when you make a turn onto a 4 lane road (2 each way) left turn end you turn in the left lane and the same for right turns end in right lane.
Now the rub, here in FLA the law reads what ever lane you finish your turn in is o-kee-dokie and legal.
My point no matter what we do and where we travel we will never be totally versed in the law.
I understand MV law violations result in tickets and firearms result in possible jail time.
All I wanted to do with this thread was share what was sent to me.

 

[carguychris]

Why not have a plain old state license that covers you in your state and similar states- then add to that system a national license to cover all 50 states, but requires additional training?

The more I think about this, the better it sounds. In fact, I'll take the idea further, and throw this out there for consideration.

I propose a two-tiered license system, which I'll call Class A for the national license, and Class B for the state license.

My hypothetical law would make all current state-issued CHL's into Class B licenses by default, and prohibit the Feds from enacting any regulations affecting Class B licenses. No state would be required to honor a Class B license from another state, but all would be free to do so by choice. In effect, Class B would preserve the existing reciprocity system with no changes whatsoever.

Standards for the new Class A license would be agreed upon by a committee drawn from various different states.

The new federal Class A license would be honored in any and every state. No state would be required to issue it, but a citizen or lawful permanent resident of a non-issuing state would be permitted to obtain one elsewhere. I suggest making Class A licenses shall-issue, and adding a clause allowing a licensee to carry ONE unregistered handgun into a state that mandates handgun registration, provided that the gun is of a type that residents of the state can lawfully possess under normal circumstances. I also suggest making Class A licensees exempt from the out-of-state "Gotcha Clause" in the GFSZA, but perhaps this is REALLY wishful thinking.

I find this proposal to be a shockingly logical alternative to allowing the proverbial camel's nose in the tent for ALL CHL's.

Discuss.

 

[rwilson452]

The problem with your class A license is simple. The committee would set standards so high that it would make the license impossible except for the very well off or well connected. As is the case in many anti gun states now.

Once you get a politically appointed committee involved Things will go down hill in a hurry.


I live in PA where there are no skill or educational requirements to obtain a license. The fee is low ($20).

The more I think about this, the better it sounds. In fact, I'll take the idea further, and throw this out there for consideration.

I propose a two-tiered license system, which I'll call Class A for the national license, and Class B for the state license.

My hypothetical law would make all current state-issued CHL's into Class B licenses by default, and prohibit the Feds from enacting any regulations affecting Class B licenses. No state would be required to honor a Class B license from another state, but all would be free to do so by choice. In effect, Class B would preserve the existing reciprocity system with no changes whatsoever.

Standards for the new Class A license would be agreed upon by a committee drawn from various different states.

The new federal Class A license would be honored in any and every state. No state would be required to issue it, but a citizen or lawful permanent resident of a non-issuing state would be permitted to obtain one elsewhere. I suggest making Class A licenses shall-issue, and adding a clause allowing a licensee to carry ONE unregistered handgun into a state that mandates handgun registration, provided that the gun is of a type that residents of the state can lawfully possess under normal circumstances. I also suggest making Class A licensees exempt from the out-of-state "Gotcha Clause" in the GFSZA, but perhaps this is REALLY wishful thinking.

I find this proposal to be a shockingly logical alternative to allowing the proverbial camel's nose in the tent for ALL CHL's.

 

[noelf2]

Originally Posted by wayneinFL
Why not have a plain old state license that covers you in your state and similar states- then add to that system a national license to cover all 50 states, but requires additional training?

How long do you think it will take the feds to make that sort of a system and at what cost? Another billion or so? It's so easy to think up a system, much different to develop and deploy it.

The states have been doing a fine job with reciprocity without getting the federal government's mucky maulers in the mix. Reciprocity is making strides every year. Let the state residents put pressure on their state government to work out reciprocity.

 

[wayneinFL]

The states have been doing a fine job with reciprocity without getting the federal government's mucky maulers in the mix.

And yet even though we've had a CWFL permitting system since 1987, I still have to put away my gun when I'm sent to IL, CA, MN, NV, and anywhere from MD north on the east coast. As much as I travel, I wouldn't mind paying a couple of hundred bucks.

Reciprocity is making strides every year. Let the state residents put pressure on their state government to work out reciprocity.

I can put all the pressure in the world on CA, and it won't help.

How long do you think it will take the feds to make that sort of a system and at what cost? Another billion or so? It's so easy to think up a system, much different to develop and deploy it.

It could be as simple as adding an FBI background check and an NRA training requirement, then stamping an endorsement on the same state license you have now.

I live in PA where there are no skill or educational requirements to obtain a license. The fee is low ($20).

And why would that change?

 

[WilliamDahl]

There are some people who choose to have non-resident CHLs (i.e. from other states than they live in) due to various reasons -- cheaper, recognized by more states than their home state, etc. As such, a national reciprocity that relied on your home state license would affect those people.

I'm all for States Rights (even though the War of Northern Aggression pretty much destroyed that concept), but States Rights should not be able to counter our natural rights which were reaffirmed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Should a state be able to restrict a particular religion? The same goes for our right to bear arms.

 

[noelf2]

Quote:
The states have been doing a fine job with reciprocity without getting the federal government's mucky maulers in the mix.
---
And yet even though we've had a CWFL permitting system since 1987, I still have to put away my gun when I'm sent to IL, CA, MN, NV, and anywhere from MD north on the east coast. As much as I travel, I wouldn't mind paying a couple of hundred bucks.

And you had to put it away for many more places than that just 5 or 6 years ago. Point is we're getting there without the feds help.

Quote:
Reciprocity is making strides every year. Let the state residents put pressure on their state government to work out reciprocity.
---
I can put all the pressure in the world on CA, and it won't help.

Don't go there. I don't, ever, and never will as long at they ignore the constitution.

Quote:
How long do you think it will take the feds to make that sort of a system and at what cost? Another billion or so? It's so easy to think up a system, much different to develop and deploy it.
---
It could be as simple as adding an FBI background check and an NRA training requirement, then stamping an endorsement on the same state license you have now.

What seems simple in your mind is not so simple in reality. How will law officers in other states verify/validate the federal stamp on your state issued license is real? A special federal (FBI) database access would be required for them to pull that specific information. Quick access to that information and the development of the system supporting it would be expensive and is not simple. Also, if the fed gov passed an act that would allow all lawful people to carry in all shall issue states with FBI background and NRA training requirements, then, the feds will dictate what that training entails and what pass and fail criteria will be. This is all beside that fact that the NRA and the fed gov don't get along very well, and the NRA should not agree with requirements necessary to practice a constitutional right (which seems to be what you advocate). Constitutional carry is what you should be fighting for, and should be what you are writing to your state reps about. That worked well for some other states, and will for more in the future as long as the citizens aren't so defeatist.

Quote:
I live in PA where there are no skill or educational requirements to obtain a license. The fee is low ($20).
---
And why would that change?

You really don't get it. Add requirements, and you will pay more. Some sort of FBI check, and the fed to stamp your state license, will cost time and money. This right should be FREE to all lawful citizens.

 

[WilliamDahl]

What we should be working towards is less federal gun "laws". Besides, every one of them that came after the 2nd Amendment is blatantly unconstitutional since it violates the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" clause.

 

[Don P]

2- States rights

In my opening post its states this,

“The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of2014 fully protects state sovereignty, because it does not establish national standards for the practice of concealed carry, does not allow for a national concealed carry permit, and does not allow individuals to circumvent their home state’s permitting laws.

My emphasis.

 

[noelf2]

In my opening post its states this,
Quote:
“The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of2014 fully protects state sovereignty, because it does not establish national standards for the practice of concealed carry, does not allow for a national concealed carry permit, and does not allow individuals to circumvent their home state’s permitting laws.

With respect, I just don't think your emphasis makes sense. It seems contradictory. How can an act fully protect state sovereignty when it usurps state sovereignty? Even if a miracle happened, and the fed gov came up with a redundant act that made constitutional carry the law of the land (as if it isn't already), the states can still ignore that act and prosecute people that don't follow the state law. You will get little, if any, help from the feds while you're in jail.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

We're always yelling about this or that being constitutional or unconstitutional... unless we agree with the stated goal, then we don't seem to care.

Any type of national reciprocity has to be based on a power that's been delegated to the federal government and/or the federal government using it's power to protect the ENUMERATED rights set forth therein.

Right now, carrying a gun is not a (recognized) right. It should be, but it isn't. What you or I think does not matter, what the SCOTUS says is all that counts.

So, first we need a recognized constitutional right to carry outside the home THEN we need a lawsuit, probably based on the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th amendment to prevent states from abridging those privileges.

(So goes my best understanding, IANAL)

 

[Tom Servo]

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014 fully protects state sovereignty, because (...)

When the federal government passes a law forcing a state to do something it's not already doing, that's hardly protecting sovereignty.

Brian's right. We need to fix this through the courts before we can push a nationwide change. If we don't, our opponents will.

Imagine this bill got signed into law (which is not going to happen in this administration). A coalition of states including, say, New York, New Jersey, and California mounts a legal challenge. The argument? 10th Amendment violations and the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to home defense. What happens if they win that one?

Yeah.

This is a waste of time and resources, and it's only being pushed because a few politicians want to keep their NRA ratings up.

 

[wayneinFL]

And you had to put it away for many more places than that just 5 or 6 years ago. Point is we're getting there without the feds help.

Nope. 5 or 6 years ago we were at 30 something reciprocal states, and it's about the same. We lose about as many as we gain each year. For example, we gained no states, and lost WA and PA this year. (And guess what- I just gained PA as one of my areas.)

I can put all the pressure in the world on CA, and it won't help.
Don't go there. I don't, ever, and never will as long at they ignore the constitution.

I'll quit and take a $35,000 pay cut. Seems like cutting off my nose to spite my face. But I'm sure my family will support the decision.

While we're discussing life choices, why haven't you left PA for AZ? They don't have constitutional carry in PA. Don't go there. Don't live there. Don't work there.

What seems simple in your mind is not so simple in reality. How will law officers in other states verify/validate the federal stamp on your state issued license is real?

How do they do it now? I've been pulled over in NC and GA. We didn't have a problem.

Constitutional carry is what you should be fighting for, and should be what you are writing to your state reps about. That worked well for some other states, and will for more in the future as long as the citizens aren't so defeatist.

Great, and I'll continue to fight for that. But I can't fight for it after I'm found dead in Philly because I was stuck on principle.

You really don't get it. Add requirements, and you will pay more. Some sort of FBI check, and the fed to stamp your state license, will cost time and money.

You have a $20 license without a training requirement. That's what they had in Missouri. Problem they had a lot of prohibited places, and no one wanted to let an untrained license holder into those places. People who paid a minimal fee and didn't want to carry everywhere didn't want to budge on a training requirement. So the legislature came up with an "enhanced" license as a compromise. You pay the old fee, you can't carry into a church, for example. People who wanted to carry in the otherwise prohibited places are the ones who pay the extra fees- there was no reason for the normal license fee to go up.

This right should be FREE to all lawful citizens.

I agree. But it's not free. So, do I stick to my principles and give up the right entirely? Or do I give a little to get a lot, and work for "Constitutional Carry" in the meantime? Seems obvious to me.

 

[wayneinFL]

Imagine this bill got signed into law (which is not going to happen in this administration). A coalition of states including, say, New York, New Jersey, and California mounts a legal challenge. The argument? 10th Amendment violations and the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to home defense. What happens if they win that one?

The 10th Amendment would be a pretty weak argument. The legislative branch can get around almost anything by invoking the commerce clause.

As for the issue of home defense, federal courts are already applying the 2nd Amendment to carry outside the home.

I agree that it would be difficult to get signed with this administration. I see it more as an option for 2016.

 

[noelf2]

Wayne in Virginia, we're getting better every year. Closer and closer to constitutional carry. And I can carry in PA with reciprocity without getting shot (done it). If, in the future, Virginia gun laws and reciprocity gets worse, I will give priority to constitutional carry states. Until then, I will keep fighting the good fight in Richmond with the VCDL. We make progress every year.

How do they do it now? I've been pulled over in NC and GA. We didn't have a problem.

Well they look at your driver's license and your CCW, CHP (whatever). They "might" check your name on a criminal database for existing warrants and such. Sans warrants, they give you your ticket or warning and you are on your way (real police officers that know better can correct if I'm wrong please). So should the criminal database that they check also account for all non-criminals that have federal reciprocity stamps? First, that would be a disgrace. Second, it would require time, money, and people to get the info for all non-criminal people in this country with federal reciprocity stamps into the criminal database. If not using the criminal database, a new database and info check would need to be created and employed. No matter how it's done, it isn't going to be cheap. Get it now? Maybe not. I give up...

 

[ThesNazud]

Part of me wonders if they know this won't go through, and are using it as a pawn, so they appear to 'compromise' when they try again with one the dems would like better... Kinda like the proverbial foot in the door....

 

[carguychris]

Part of me wonders if they know this won't go through, and are using it as a pawn, so they appear to 'compromise' when they try again with one the dems would like better...

I'm not so certain there will be a follow-up.

I believe Tom Servo hit the nail on the head with his comment about NRA ratings in post #34. If the goal is to score political points, no follow-up is necessary.

Frankly, I'm not sure that an intelligent compromise is possible, given the current ideological gulf on the gun-rights issue.

 

[wayneinFL]

Wayne in Virginia, we're getting better every year. Closer and closer to constitutional carry. And I can carry in PA with reciprocity without getting shot (done it). If, in the future, Virginia gun laws and reciprocity gets worse, I will give priority to constitutional carry states. Until then, I will keep fighting the good fight in Richmond with the VCDL. We make progress every year.

I'm happy for you and your situation. But if I travel to PA, I don't have the option to carry. They dropped us because our permits are good for 7 years.

Virgina is getting better, I'm sure, but you'll find that eventually, it plateaus off. Some states don't allow for reciprocity. And most shall issue states have a clause that allows for reciprocity for states with laws that are substantively similar, and each state interprets that differently. For example, even though we have a training requirement, we allow reciprocity with many other states that do not have that requirement. Even though we require an FBI background check, we allow reciprocity with many other states that do not have that requirement. But give us another couple of years on the license, and some states have booted us.

I agree the long term solution is constitutional carry. Or a court decision requiring states to issue permits to non residents.

So should the criminal database that they check also account for all non-criminals that have federal reciprocity stamps? First, that would be a disgrace

Outright forbidding a basic right of self defense, based solely on the state your permit was issued in, is an even bigger disgrace.

Second, it would require time, money, and people to get the info for all non-criminal people in this country with federal reciprocity stamps into the criminal database. If not using the criminal database, a new database and info check would need to be created and employed. No matter how it's done, it isn't going to be cheap. Get it now? Maybe not. I give up...

You keep lambasting me for "not getting it". The part you don't seem to get yourself is that I have not in any way suggested that we should restrict the existing state permitting system, or pull any money from it. Any cost of any "national carry" system should fall on the people willing to pay extra. Any further restrictions should fall on those people as well. Then if you're happy with your situation, you're not affected.