Constitutional CCW Reciprcity
- Thread starter Don P
- Start date
- Status
62coltnavy
New member
Clyde, think of it this way. Your driver's license is valid in every other state, irrespective of your particular state's requirements for obtaining one, and irrespective of the minimum insurance requirements imposed as a condition of licensure. I don't recall hearing any "state's rights" complaints about required reciprocity. A car is just as deadly a weapon as a firearm; there is no reason that rules of reciprocity should be any different between them.
Fishing_Cabin
New member
There is, and has been debate over states participating fully, or less than fully in the DLC (Driver License Compact), DLA (Driver License Agreement), and the NRVC (Non-Resident Violator Compact). If the states work together as to CCW, it will never be complete reciprocity in every respect, as drivers licenses are not either.
This is why some states may not report certain charges to your home state, but others do, or is why you must post bond for minor offenses. Yes, you can drive in other states, but the various agreements come in to play when there is an issue or conflict, and it would be reasonable to expect the same with any CCW agreements.
This is why some states may not report certain charges to your home state, but others do, or is why you must post bond for minor offenses. Yes, you can drive in other states, but the various agreements come in to play when there is an issue or conflict, and it would be reasonable to expect the same with any CCW agreements.
Cars & transpo....
I understand the point about DLs & vehicles but it's not quite the same.
The US auto industry pushed the "car culture" on society in the 1940s/1950s/1960s. They lobbied for federal highways, roads, bridges, etc.
They wanted to see as many people as possible in a vehicle spending $$$ on gas, tires, oil, parts, etc.
Transportation are a vital part of US commerce. Firearms & concealed firearms are not. The CCW issue is hotly debated & not everyone "needs" a gun the way they "need" a car.
Clyde
I understand the point about DLs & vehicles but it's not quite the same.
The US auto industry pushed the "car culture" on society in the 1940s/1950s/1960s. They lobbied for federal highways, roads, bridges, etc.
They wanted to see as many people as possible in a vehicle spending $$$ on gas, tires, oil, parts, etc.
Transportation are a vital part of US commerce. Firearms & concealed firearms are not. The CCW issue is hotly debated & not everyone "needs" a gun the way they "need" a car.
Clyde
People don't need guns as often as they need cars, but when they need a gun, they REALLY need a gun. That's why it's considered a fundamental right and the Founding Father meant to enumerate it as a right in the Constitution.
Believe me, I didn't pay the extra $25 to check a carry-on sized bag with a pistol in it, (4 times in the last month) because it's fun to carry. There is a need behind it.
The problem is that CCW agreements aren't the same between all states, but that many states don't recognize the right at all.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
On the other hand, there is no constitutional guarantee of a right to operate a vehicle, not even in your home state and certainly not in other states. That's why all states issue licenses to operate motor vehicles.ClydeFrog said:
But there IS a constitutionally guaranteed right (supposedly) to keep and bear arms. When you have to request and pay for a license to exercise a right, it is no longer a right.
And THAT is the fundamental difference between drivers' licenses and sidearms.
That's true but....
I agree with the last post remarks but the problem comes up with standards & training requirements.
Would it be 0? Would every gun owner/license holder need a federal test? Who would administer the exam(s)? How long would "federal mandate or approved" licenses last? 2 years? 4 years? 6 years?
What if new elected officials wanted to "opt out" of the federal program?
As I said, a nationwide CCW seems nice but I don't see how it would be managed or enforced w/o errors or problems.
See the recent www.Healthcare.gov mess.
Clyde
I agree with the last post remarks but the problem comes up with standards & training requirements.
Would it be 0? Would every gun owner/license holder need a federal test? Who would administer the exam(s)? How long would "federal mandate or approved" licenses last? 2 years? 4 years? 6 years?
What if new elected officials wanted to "opt out" of the federal program?
As I said, a nationwide CCW seems nice but I don't see how it would be managed or enforced w/o errors or problems.
See the recent www.Healthcare.gov mess.
Clyde
Aguila Blanca
Staff
You are missing the point.ClydeFrog said:
The bill being proposed does NOT in any way establish any federal license, federal program, federal exam, federal training requirements, or federal anything. ALL it does is require each state to recognize a carry license or permit issued by any other state.
Spats McGee
Administrator
For the moment. I guess I just don't believe that any such bill would survive the enactment process without being amended to include federal standards. Even if it did, I don't think it would be long before the Schumers/Feinsteins/etc. started screaming for federal standards.
carguychris
New member
...or the restrictive states could sue, ultimately resulting in de facto federal standards being imposed by the courts.Spats McGee said:
This is why I've argued for a separate tier of federal licenses. This would give the restrictive states impetus to focus their energy on the federal standards rather than attacking carry in general.
However, the more I've thought about this issue, the more I've come to believe that we should just let sleeping dogs lie until the SCOTUS definitively rules on carry outside the home.
Last edited:
A few states already have a two-tiered system- an "enhanced" CCW license allows residents to carry in some of the prohibited places, or allows them more states. Idaho now has reciprocity with WA, for example.
Other states have constitutional carry, but still offer licenses for people who need to carry in other states.
I like the idea of a low cost/no cost option for people who don't need reciprocity, and a higher cost option for people who do. It's not as good as nationwide constitutional carry- it's a stopgap measure- but it'[s a better stopgap measure than what we have now.
Would you be opposed to a two tier system for freedom of speech? Or religion? Or any other constitutional right? How about you can only call a politician a liar if you pay a bit more money? Or perhaps you have the right to remain silent, but not if questioned by police unless you can show them your "I paid for this" card? How about praying at home, but you have to pay a fee to pray in public? Not sure how you can "like the idea of a low cost/no cost option for people who don't need reciprocity". Who claims that anyone has to have a "need" for their rights? Constitutional rights are there because the need has already been recognized, for everyone!
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Thank you.noelf2 said:
I agree. Although that brings us to the point of having to remember that, in the strictest terms, ANY license or permit to carry could be argued to be unconstitutional. Subject to the proviso that, as the state courts decided in Ohio, and many years previously in Utah (I think), if the state wants to ban or license concealed carry they may do so, BUT only if they freely allow unlicensed open carry. However, it could also go the other way. It's unlikely to happen, but a state theoretically could decide that unlicensed concealed carry is okay, but you need a license to carry openly. It could make for an interesting situation if some states ended up licensing concealed carry while others chose to license open carry -- think what a mess THAT would make for reciprocity.
I'm opposed to a one tier system. But if my other option is don't carry, I'll do what I have to do for now.
Since you're ideologically opposed to having to buy a permit to exercise a constitutional right, just give up the permit you have now, and refuse to carry. Otherwise, you're just as much a sellout as I am.
No I'm not. I hate paying to practice any right. You openly say you "like" a tiered payment system because you could get what you need for now. If you could pay for what you needed, you'd probably not continue with what should be. I'm motivated to make the right change, not to settle for a compromise. It's not about ME and what I need. It's about what is right, and what we ALL should have. I think that's where we differ.
The idea that I will suddenly forget about politics is your assumption, based on a quote you pulled out of the context of my post. Read the rest of my post.
Stopgap, definition by Merriam Webster, emphasis mine:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stopgap
The only point we differ on is that I am willing to accept a fee to practice a right now, and lobby to eliminate the fee in the future. You would rather accept a complete loss of that right until you can get it for free. And you really don't differ from me that far, because you are currently paying to exercise a right in Virginia.
I can open carry in Virginia, and occasionally I do. I have my right without the need for any license at all. I do choose to have and pay for a conceal carry license as well, but I don't have to have it to carry in Virginia. Our tier one is constitutional carry. Our second tier is to pay to conceal. I don't like it, and like you, I work to get full constitutional carry. I don't want more (any) tiers.
Last edited:
62coltnavy
New member
So tell me, Noel, as I am confused about this--what about the 1000' exclusionary zone of the gun Free School Zone Act? Here in California--aside from the fact that open carry is now banned--the act is enforced, and it is virtually impossible to open carry in public. What does Virginia do?
- Status