National Reciprocity is Dead

Armed_Chicagoan said:
I have yet to see a convincing legal argument that there is a restrictive law that Congress can pass with national reciprocity that they can't pass without it.
Click to expand...
There's not, but that's not the point.

The point is that HR 38 would insert the Feds right into the middle of a legal field that is almost exclusively the states' business today, and more critically, it would establish a de facto lowest common denominator licensing standard. It would effectively invalidate a large body of state and local law that dates back decades in many cases. Past federal gun control efforts did not do this on a large scale.
 
zukiphile said:
Whether the the reciprocity bill affects a non commercial activity that occurs entirely within a state is exactly the issue that has been raised.
Click to expand...
Unless you happen to live in the state in which your firearm was manufactured, and your firearm didn't pass through a distributor in another state on its way to your local FFL, firearms are items in interstate commerce, and that's all the feds need in order to assert jurisdiction.

Oh, but wait! Where did your ammunition come from?
 
Those don't affect state laws, but they do affect interstate carry...
Click to expand...
That's a stretch. The fact that the federal government LIFTED restrictions on certain types of federal/federally administered property/assets doesn't change state carry laws.

That's like saying that I affect the state speed limits if I own a private road that I allow public traffic to use and then at some point, I remove the lower speed limit that I set and allow the state speed limit to apply even on my property. I'm not changing or affecting the state laws, I'm just lifting a restriction I had imposed on my own property.
The issue isn't whether or not something affects state carry laws...
Click to expand...
Actually, that's exactly the issue. Obviously the federal government has involved itself in myriad issues that are actually the business of the state. But so far they have remained remarkably hands off with respect to how state carry laws are written and administered.

Nobody that I can see is pretending that this will be the first time the federal government has put its nose where it doesn't belong. The argument is that this will be the first time the federal government has put its nose into the actual nuts and bolts of how state carry laws are written and administered.
 
JohnKSa said:
Nobody that I can see is pretending that this will be the first time the federal government has put its nose where it doesn't belong. The argument is that this will be the first time the federal government has put its nose into the actual nuts and bolts of how state carry laws are written and administered.
Click to expand...
How does this get into how state carry laws are written, or administered? That's a rhetorical question -- the answer is, it doesn't.

Each state will still be free to write carry laws, just as they always have. And, just as with states that currently enjoy reciprocity, when carrying in a state other than your home state you will be subject to carrying according to their rules. The only difference is that you will be allowed to do so in states that currently don't offer reciprocity.

This is really no different than the FOPA, except that this addresses carry, where the FOPA addresses transportation.

Are you aware that the NRA regards this as the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation since the Second Amendment?
 
Are you that young and naive? Once the Feds can take control (and they will), folks in AZ and other states will have restrictions based on what the lawmakers in NY, NJ and elsewhere want in order for you to MAYBE be allowed to carry in those other states.

IT is NOT worth the ceding of freedom and control to an ever-increasing and controlling central government.
Keep the feds OUT of this. States with free gun ownership and carry ability have already worked out reciprocity. Forcing the proverbial square peg into the round hole of those anti states doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.
 
Last edited:
AB said:
Nobody that I can see is pretending that this will be the first time the federal government has put its nose where it doesn't belong. The argument is that this will be the first time the federal government has put its nose into the actual nuts and bolts of how state carry laws are written and administered.
Click to expand...
How does this get into how state carry laws are written, or administered? That's a rhetorical question -- the answer is, it doesn't.

Each state will still be free to write carry laws, just as they always have. And, just as with states that currently enjoy reciprocity, when carrying in a state other than your home state you will be subject to carrying according to their rules. The only difference is that you will be allowed to do so in states that currently don't offer reciprocity.
Click to expand...

Determining who carries within a state is fairly described as part of the administration state law.

AB said:
This is really no different than the FOPA, except that this addresses carry, where the FOPA addresses transportation.
Click to expand...

FOPA addresses transportation through a state, an activity that is categorically interstate. That isn't a small difference.

AB said:
Are you aware that the NRA regards this as the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation since the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that it would be significant, but it may not be helpful.
 
Each state will still be free to write carry laws, just as they always have. And, just as with states that currently enjoy reciprocity, when carrying in a state other than your home state you will be subject to carrying according to their rules. The only difference is that you will be allowed to do so in states that currently don't offer reciprocity.
Click to expand...

How does that work in a state like NJ or California where carrying a gun is extremely restricted? A nonresident would have more freedom to carry than most of the residents, if he/she can carry at all.

This bill forces states to comply with a Federal mandate against the will of the people and the laws of that state. This mandate is based on the premise that unrestricted concealed carry is a Constitutional right granted by the Second Amendment.

I understand that your position is, "shall not be infringed," means that any regulation of keeping and bearing arms is a violation of our rights. In a woodenly ridged interpretation this would mean that the right to bear arms supercedes my right to forbid it on my property, or that banning guns in court violates my right. We cannot dismiss the prefatory clause because we believe that, 'we the people,' are the militia, without at least examining what, "well regulated," means.

This bill, if passed, says I have the right to carry in your state, based on my 2A rights regardless of your laws. The problem is there is not universal agreement that this is the intent of the Amendment. Your state's view of what, "well regulated," means may be completely different than mine. Without a clear mandate, inserting the Feds nose into the tent of the individual states is more troubling to me than the fact that I can't carry a gun in NJ or NYC.
 
ATN082268 said:
Just forbid the person from my property
Click to expand...
The irony of this comment is that, should this law pass, I can envision legions of private business owners in major metro areas in CA/MA/NY/etc doing exactly that. :rolleyes:
 
FITASC said:
Are you that young and naive?
Click to expand...
I dunno -- is 73 (almost 74) "young" in your book? I carried an M16 in Vietnam. I've testified before legislatures, both to get laws passed and to get a law repealed. I've been a material witness in two federal white collar crime cases. I've done a lot and I've seen a lot. I don't think I'm naive, but you're welcome to your opinion. All I ask is that, in expressing your opinion, you respect my right to express my opinion without attempting to belittle me.
 
Not belittling, just try to find out. Many of the young folks here, taught in today's public schools ARE young and naive..............
 
zukiphile said:
FOPA addresses transportation through a state, an activity that is categorically interstate. That isn't a small difference.
Click to expand...
In terms of "interstateness" I have to disagree. If the guns come from another state and the person comes from another state, why is it "interstate" when the person transports the firearm in the trunk of his car, but it's not "interstate" when the person (who is from another state) wants to carry the same gun (which is also from another state) on his belt?

If I live in Kansas and I want to visit the statue of liberty and see New York, I'll be crossing state borders, and I'll be spending money that I earned in Kansas on food, lodging, transportation, and "stuff" in New York. How is that NOT interstate commerce?
 
AB said:
FOPA addresses transportation through a state, an activity that is categorically interstate. That isn't a small difference.
Click to expand...
In terms of "interstateness" I have to disagree. If the guns come from another state and the person comes from another state, why is it "interstate" when the person transports the firearm in the trunk of his car, but it's not "interstate" when the person (who is from another state) wants to carry the same gun (which is also from another state) on his belt?
Click to expand...

The act of carrying entirely within a state is itself intrastate while traveling from state to state never is.

Note that the terms of the reciprocity bill don't just bear on application of state laws on people from other states, but on the residents of the state as well. A resident of state X can get a permit from state Y, and use it to carry an arm manufactured in state X within state X.

AB said:
If I live in Kansas and I want to visit the statue of liberty and see New York, I'll be crossing state borders, and I'll be spending money that I earned in Kansas on food, lodging, transportation, and "stuff" in New York. How is that NOT interstate commerce?
Click to expand...

You just described commerce that occurs entirely within NY and asked how it isn't interstate commerce. That you described public accommodations within NY doesn't make the commerce you describe "interstate", but are facilities necessary to and affecting interstate commerce under existing case law. The gist of the public accommodation caselaw is that one can't travel if he can't stay at a hotel or eat in a restaurant, so Congress has authority to regulate it.

Carrying your arm is not a public accommodation or necessary to or substantially affecting interstate commerce. I would like to see you able to carry it in every state, just not at the price of inviting Congress into every state to regulate how everyone else can carry. In the long run, I don't trust Congress more than state legislatures in matters of state police powers.
 
Last edited:
Each state will still be free to write carry laws, just as they always have.
Click to expand...
Except when it comes to who is allowed to carry and who is not. They will not have control over that because it will be mandated that if anyone is allowed to carry in any other state, even if they would be prohibited from carry in the state in question, they will be allowed to do so with their home state permit.

In other words, each state will be limited, at least to some extent, as to what carry laws it can write and enforce.
And, just as with states that currently enjoy reciprocity, when carrying in a state other than your home state you will be subject to carrying according to their rules.
Click to expand...
Unless their rules say I can't carry at all. In that case their rules don't apply to me even though they apply to their citizens.

In other words, at least some of their rules won't apply to me.

We can argue about whether or not those infringements on state's rights are large or small, and about whether or not they are worth letting the federal government get their noses under the tent, but it's pretty obvious that they ARE getting their nose under the tent with this law.
 
The reciprocity bill?

The original argument, or way to look at it, this bill. Is from the perspective of a State issued driving license, allows driving in every State?

For instance at this time, a retired Law Enforcement Officer, on retirement, with X number of years service? Can carry concealed in every state. With a re-ql. each year.
If this has not caused blood in the streets, as bleated about with the people who opposed it? Why would I carrying in Sacramento CA, visiting with my Wife, once a year, the last visit a month? Be a big deal?

Visiting Malls, with a 4-year-old, and 5 years old, and sharing the area, with some sketchy characters? Make any normal person feel threatened?
At this time my only means of protection is my City Stick, a composite walking stick, that is better than nothing.

I would even not find it too much of an inconvenience, to swap my 15 round magazines for the 10 rounders, mandated in Democrat land CA.
My Glock 19 was waiting for me in my safe on my return! Gods Country. Florida. As my Wife and I are the only denizens of our wee Townhouse, the three green dots are visible on my bedside table right now!

Merry Christmas all.
 
The original argument, or way to look at it, this bill. Is from the perspective of a State issued driving license, allows driving in every State?
Click to expand...

I understand why this keeps recurring as an analogy. We all expect our home state driver's license to be honored in every state. However that isn't a matter of federal imposition.

http://apps.csg.org/ncic/Compact.aspx?id=56

I can recall traveling with my father and the PO wanting to keep his driver's license because he was a resident of another state. This was supposed to insure payment of the ticket or appearance in court. I believe one of the reasons people belonged to AAA was that it would post a bond for your out of state appearance, and you were allowed to retain your license.
 
JohnKSa said:
Except when it comes to who is allowed to carry and who is not. They will not have control over that because it will be mandated that if anyone is allowed to carry in any other state, even if they would be prohibited from carry in the state in question, they will be allowed to do so with their home state permit.
Click to expand...
Which, until we eliminate carry permits entirely and get back to what the Second Amendment actually says, is the way it should be.

I do not understand you naysayers. The principle underlying this law is exactly the same as that underlying the FOPA and the LEOSA.

FOPA:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, ...
Click to expand...


LEOSA:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, ...
Click to expand...


Proposed reciprocity (HR 38):

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
"But the threshhold was as simple as the person could no longer balance his/her checkbook and therefore needed (or just wanted) some help in watching the money, not that they were in any way a danger to society. Ask Mike Irwin -- IIRC, he went through this with his mother. (Not the NICS report, but the fact that she reached a point of not being capable of managing her own finances. That didn't make her a menace to society.)"

Correct. Mom was having increasing trouble managing her finances, was missing payments, and worse, was randomly canceling stuff that she needed, like insurance.

Went through hell sorting that out, but she didn't give me too much hassle taking over her bills.

I did, however, take her (my actually) gun away from her. She was FAR more pissed about that than she was me handling her finances.
 
Because those of us who do not live with the restrictions imposed by NJ, NY, CA, etc. do not want them imposed in out state from a Federal level - and that WILL happen; maybe not immediately, but once the administration changes, it will. This is NOT a Federal government issue, and I - for one - do not want it to become one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top