looking for a brief and convincing argument against National Reciprocity
- Thread starter L2R
- Start date
You might be right and I may or may not say anything. But if we are to follow this pattern within our own group (not speak up to offer a different view) then how will we ever convince those who are on the fence about guns rights in general? Are we to stay quiet while the rest of the media and politicians keep broadcasting their anti-gun views?
This is getting off topic, I did not ask whether I should say something but rather how to better point out another view. I can decide at the time if it is appropriate however, I really do appreciate all the advice. I do know that if no one wants to hear it, it is pointless. I only wanted to be prepared if it came up and seemed appropriate.
thank you all, it is ALL good advise and I do appreciate each post.
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
That's not an argument against reciprocity, because reciprocity is not a prerequisite to passing such a law.Skolnick said:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
What's the point of arguing that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and that the 2A is part of the Constitution, if you don't want the national government to enforce the Constitution? By your logic, the McDonald case should have been decided in favor of the State of Illinois, and Illinois shouldn't be required to issue carry permits.Troy800 said:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Why would looser states have to adopt stricter gun laws?NateKirk said:
LR2 said:
I did not mean to suggest to you that advocacy is useless, only that it might be useless in the specific situation you've described.
The federalist objection to handing Congress the power to regulate strictly intrastate carry is one I've found to be a minority position in most groups of shooters, this one included. Your original sentiment, the one I quote back to you on the prior page is practical and easy to understand.
Put a bit differently, federalism and constitutional limits on federal power are a protection against federal dictation that could prohibit legal carry when federal office holders change. If we ignore those constitutional limits when it suits our desires, how are we situated to assert those limits when the winds change and people desire to prohibit you from carrying or possessing?
I believe the way I've put it is less intuitive than the way you have, but these are your acquaintances and you'll have a better sense of what they would accept.
Agreed, reciprocity is not a prerequisite, but with skin in the game, reciprocity makes it more likely.
silverbullet6oh
New member
I have been thinking more about this thread while going about my daily business....... And even though I have already posted once with my thought, I think I may appreciate the OP's thread even more.
The current system is probably the "best" we have, unfortunately
. NateKirk, your spot on IMO. We would have too many blue states demanding that the people as a whole would only be allowed to have a certain amount of rounds in a mag, no imprinting allowed (not to say I imprint on purpose, but there are times I am sure I do imprint a little), no mods to the pistols.
I guess I don't want other states trying to dictate what I can do in my own state, either. Now I am seeing the bigger picture.
- P
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The NSSF has just weighed in on the issue:
https://www.nssf.org/more-new-jersey-pardons-demonstrate-need-for-concealed-carry-reciprocity/
https://www.nssf.org/more-new-jersey-pardons-demonstrate-need-for-concealed-carry-reciprocity/
I am in favor of national reciprocity. I am NOT in favor of a federal mandate or law forcing such.
The system allows for complete reciprocity, already, and always has. The fact that some states choose not to participate, is also allowed in our system.
Yes, it ought to be like drivers licenses, where all the states have chosen to accept all the other states licenses. But it isn't, and its within the law, and states rights for them to make that choice.
If you are looking for a short, simple argument against national reciprocity, there isn't one. Nor, should there be. It's a good idea, and a sound principle.
HOWEVER, there are numerous and valid arguments about how national reciprocity is to be obtained. Right now, it is the will of certain states to set their own standards for what they will, and will not recognize in this matter.
Is it a just use of Federal authority to take this away from them?? Does the Federal govt HAVE the LEGAL authority to do it? (you have to look at MORE than just the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, because, that clause does not (in legal terms) say what most people think it says)
I think its horrible that someone could be looking at years of jail time, simply because they missed their exit on the freeway, or their plane had to make an emergency landing. I also think its horrible that in those kind of cases, the state prosecutes them to the full extent of the law.
No matter what is, and isn't in any reciprocity bill, if it becomes law, its certain to be challenged. After it finally reaches the high court (and assuming the high court chooses to hear the case -which is NOT a given) then we well have a decision. Probably a bad one.
The system allows for complete reciprocity, already, and always has. The fact that some states choose not to participate, is also allowed in our system.
Yes, it ought to be like drivers licenses, where all the states have chosen to accept all the other states licenses. But it isn't, and its within the law, and states rights for them to make that choice.
If you are looking for a short, simple argument against national reciprocity, there isn't one. Nor, should there be. It's a good idea, and a sound principle.
HOWEVER, there are numerous and valid arguments about how national reciprocity is to be obtained. Right now, it is the will of certain states to set their own standards for what they will, and will not recognize in this matter.
Is it a just use of Federal authority to take this away from them?? Does the Federal govt HAVE the LEGAL authority to do it? (you have to look at MORE than just the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, because, that clause does not (in legal terms) say what most people think it says)
I think its horrible that someone could be looking at years of jail time, simply because they missed their exit on the freeway, or their plane had to make an emergency landing. I also think its horrible that in those kind of cases, the state prosecutes them to the full extent of the law.
No matter what is, and isn't in any reciprocity bill, if it becomes law, its certain to be challenged. After it finally reaches the high court (and assuming the high court chooses to hear the case -which is NOT a given) then we well have a decision. Probably a bad one.
I was curious about the Constitutionality of National Reciprocity. I understand the Constitutionality when it involves a person going from state A to state B but how is it justified when person is merely carrying in state A? How does carry just in state A affect interstate commerce or fall under another part of the U.S. Constitution?
Over the years, the interstate commerce provision of the Constitution has been perverted into justifying whatever political agenda is wanted.
Here is the actual text of how they rationalized the interstate provision to ban guns from schools ...
104th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 890
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to gun free schools, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES June 7 (legislative day, June 5), 1995
The Congress finds and declares that-- (A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem; B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs ... (F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country; G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States ...
Want to take it to a greater extreme??? Look up Wickard v. Filburn at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
In the case below, Filburn affected interstate commerce by growing his own feed and not getting it though the normal channels of interstate commerce.
Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio ... harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use ...
The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
Is there any evidence, in general from our founding fathers, to support the way interstate commerce is treated by the courts?
I rather doubt it. Any "evidence" you can find in the Founder's writings and in the Constitution itself would be considered an "interpretation" by those of opposing viewpoints, and their version is just as valid as yours, until a court says otherwise.
And the courts have already said otherwise, so otherwise it is, until /unless another court says differently.
The current interpretation of the law is, essentially, that anything that can be bought or sold "affects" interstate commerce. Whether you buy it, sell it, or don't do either.
Many of us consider this a huge overreach by the govt., but until a court rules otherwise, it is the law.
The law does not consider the amount of the effect on interstate commerce that you have when you don't buy or sell, only the fact that there is an effect by not doing so, and they have so ruled.
Doesn't matter how large or how small the effect is, the courts have ruled that there IS an effect, and because there is an effect, the government has the legal authority to regulate it.
our laws are full of situations where a legal restriction is placed on something because of what MIGHT be done with it. Especially in firearms laws and regulations. Lots of things fall under the law, not because of something you did (which actually does fall under the law) but what you could do, or might do, which, IF DONE would be a crime.
The easiest place to see this principle in action is the laws defining what is, and is not a loaded firearm for transportation. The common sense definition, that a gun is loaded when it has ammunition in it, is applied, BUT ALSO applied ( in many places) is the legal definition that the gun is loaded if ammunition COULD be put in it. A gun can be legally loaded, and yet physically empty of ammunition at the same time!
You could be breaking the law, not by what you did, or didn't do, but by what you could do. It don't seem right, but it is the law...
If you mean the way interstate commerce is CURRENTLY treated by the courts, then, no.
ATN082268 said:
You mean to empower Congress to regulate intrastate, non-commercial matters? There were certainly some early americans who found the limitations put on central government unwise. If I recall correctly, Hamilton's ideas about a standing army and a central bank were viewed by many as a european hangover. However, commercial regulation within states was still firmly a matter of state police power, and states and the country were different things then.
We all live in a country that has survived the Civil War, WWI, the great depression and WWII. Those are events that forged our identity as a single nation. Prior to the Civil War, people regarded themselves as Virginians or Ohioans, sort of the way Germans and Italians consider themselves citizens of sovereign nations even though lots of their laws are made in Brussels. In that context, having Congress tell people within a state that they may not grow more than X amount of wheat couldn't have made any sense.
Commerce clause cases teach an important lesson. The COTUS grants to Congress a power to regulate a specific area, interstate, i.e. amongst the states, commerce, buying and selling and the attendant acts. However, people wanted Congress to regulate other things too, so Congress regulated them. When the laws were challenged, people on the Sup Ct who were friendly to the goal of the new regulations wrote opinions explaining why matters that themselves were not even arguably interstate commerce, e.g. growing feed for your own livestock, were nonetheless objects of congressional regulation under the commerce clause.
The lesson this teaches is that the COTUS is not an unbridgeable barricade protecting rights from political defeat, and it isn't self executing. For 2d Am. advocates this means that the work of explaining the rights involved is an endless task.
Last edited:
On May 2, 1833, probably referencing Thomas Jefferson as the "some one", the The Virginia Free Press and Farmers' Repository wrote: Some one has justly remarked, that 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.' Let the sentinels on the watch-tower sleep not, and slumber not.
It is as true back then as when zukiphile said it moments ago.