National Reciprocity is Dead

AB said:
Proposed reciprocity (HR 38):


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

That's the signal that Congress is over-riding state legislation on state police powers. Whether Congress properly has that power under the COTUS in this specific matter is the issue raised. The nay sayers are not suggesting that the federal government has never exceeded it's bounds in other matters, but that resolving the issue above legislatively may not be a long term victory.

LEOSA over-rides those state police powers where an individual is an agent of another law enforcement agency, an agent from another jurisdiction. FOPA protections for travelers pertain specifically to travel through a jurisdiction.

HR 38 is direct congressional interference in a state's exercise of police powers over state residents for activity within that state.
 
Last edited:
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...

Only when traveling through a state or staying for a short period of time.

When a permit holder becomes a resident of a new state, he’ll be required to obtain a new permit pursuant to the laws of his new state.

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.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope fallacy.

Indeed, all regulatory authority will remain solely with the states.
 
zukiphile said:
LEOSA over-rides those state police powers where an individual is an agent of another law enforcement agency, an agent from another jurisdiction. FOPA protections for travelers pertain specifically to travel through a jurisdiction.

HR 38 is direct congressional interference in a state's exercise of police powers over state residents for activity within that state.
Click to expand...
The LEOSA also applies to retired law enforcement officers -- who are private citizens, just like you and me.

And the FOPA applies to people traveling through states with guns, including states where the residents can't travel with guns. Like my state. It's legal to possess a handgun here without a license/permit, but unless you have a license/permit you can't even [legally] take your handgun to a range for practice -- even if it's unloaded and in a locked case while you're transporting it. But anyone transporting the same make and model handgun from a state to our west to a state to our east can do so under the FOPA.

So, if the proposed HR 38 is in any way a harbinger of camels and tents, I'd say the camel is already into the tent at least up to his first hump.
 
Which, until we eliminate carry permits entirely and get back to what the Second Amendment actually says, is the way it should be.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that's another issue.
The principle underlying this law is exactly the same as that underlying the FOPA and the LEOSA.
Click to expand...
Whether it is or it isn't doesn't change the fact that this is the first time the federal government put its nose into the actual nuts and bolts of how state carry laws are written and administered.
Slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...
A slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if someone makes the unwarranted/unjustified/unreasonable assumption that a particular action will lead to more actions.

1. If the assumption is warranted, it's not a fallacy.

2. My objection is not based purely on the assumption that it will lead to more actions--although that assumption is warranted/reasonable based on past patterns of federal regulation and encroachment--it is also based on general principle.
Indeed, all regulatory authority will remain solely with the states.
Click to expand...
Except when that authority conflicts with the regulatory authority of the new law. If it were true that all regulatory authority remained with the states, then the new law would have no effect. The only way that the new law can have any effect is if it overrides the regulatory authority of the states and forces them to allow activity they would otherwise prohibit.
The LEOSA also applies to retired law enforcement officers -- who are private citizens, just like you and me.
Click to expand...
LEOSA merely extends some of the normal privileges of law enforcement officers into their retirement. LEOSA does not apply to people just like you and me unless you and I retired from LE.
 
JohnKSA said:
LEOSA merely extends some of the normal privileges of law enforcement officers into their retirement. LEOSA does not apply to people just like you and me unless you and I retired from LE.
Click to expand...
No, it didn't. Active LEOs did not have any legal right to carry in other states prior to the LEOSA, no more right than you or I did. The fact that some cops in some states would give an officer from another state a break didn't make it legal. It was the LEOSA that made it legal for both active and retired law enforcement officers to carry in all states, "notwithstanding" the laws of the other states. The LEOSA didn't extend any privileges into retirement. The law has two sections, one addressing active LEOs and the other addressing retired LEOs.

Which ignores the fundamental fact that a retired LEO is not an LEO. He/she is a private citizen -- just like you and me.
 
The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The right to "keep and bear arms" is delegated to the United States through the 2nd Amendment, and is therefore to my thinking not a state issue at all. The problem is the states interpret the words "keep and bear arms" differently. Is it not the role of the US Supreme Court to resolve such different interpretations of the US Constitution among the states?

By leaving the interpretation to the states, an upstanding and law abiding citizen in State A may become a felon by crossing the border into State B with his legally owned firearm and spend years in prison. What could be more important for the SCOUS to clarify?

TomVA
 
The LEOSA didn't extend any privileges into retirement. The law has two sections, one addressing active LEOs and the other addressing retired LEOs.
Click to expand...
And the retired LE's that I shoot with have to qualify in order to maintain certification
 
the retired LE's that I shoot with have to qualify in order to maintain certification
Click to expand...

Yep, gotta qual annually to maintain certification. It is a strange thing. LEO’s must qual every year, but a CCW holder may NEVER have to qual
 
thank Rep. Sensenbrenner for that...he wouldnt let it out of committee until that provision was added to the bill
 
As I have stated multiple times in this thread, hope this bill goes down the drain in a hurry. It's the last thing we need
 
Too bad, this would push the SC to finally endorse the carry part of the 2nd and would push may issue states into shall issue states, being as everyone except their own citizens could carry.
 
this would push the SC to finally endorse the carry part of the 2nd and would push may issue states into shall issue states, being as everyone except their own citizens could carry
Click to expand...

I rather doubt that would be the result. It's an easy enough view to endorse, but it's a view from "outside the box". From inside those states "boxes", it is a different matter. State governments do "what their citizens want", though as a general rule its not a matter of what the citizens want, so much as what the citizens will put up with, before voting SOME of them out of office.

I you think that passage of the Reciprocity bill will create a massive hue and cry amongst the populations of the restrictive states, demanding their restrictions be eased, I think you will be sadly disappointed.
 
I agree with that. The urban areas of the restrictive states are probably dead set against loosening carry rules. You can see that where the urban counties will not issue permits but the rural ones are quite easy in some states.

As far as waiting to SCOTUS to have some gun rights epiphany, that is not happening without a massive court change. Don't hold your breath.

In any case, I doubt the Senate will pass the bill anyway. The vote would have to break a filibuster and the Senate GOP has its own motivations, of which guns aren't one of importance. Never see it mentioned as priority in any leadership statements, do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top