National Reciprocity is Dead

You guys seem to be nibbling around the edges and not actually thinking this through , although you believe you are . Sure each state has different driving restrictions , but I can still drive in them . Sure each state has slightly different free speech laws , but I can still speak in them . I can go on and on .

People from TX , AZ , NV etc can carry in those states . Why can't they in CA ? All those same people can drive and speak in CA so what's different about the right to bare arms ?
 
different about the right to bare arms ?
Click to expand...

Those same folks can easily wear T shirts or "wife beaters" without penalty. However, BEARing arms is a different matter. As the lawyers here will tell you, even a comma out of place can become an issue; spelling does count...........:p

In NV you can drive at one speed that you can't in CA; same for UT and other states - so why can't they drive 75 in LA?.....:cool:
 
How fast they can drive is irrelevant the point is you can still drive in LA !!!! I had no idea if I misspelled bear ( which I always do ) the whole point then becomes completely lost . FWIW this is not a court of law . This is a few gun guys talking on a "general" forum so a "," can be out of place as long as we explain and or correct what we meant . ;) Conversations are fluid and sometimes things need to be corrected or better articulated later in the conversation .

The over all point is Reciprocity is ok for drivers lic and marriage as well as other things . Why not to bear arms . Clearly marriage need not have any standards . Can't you marry your 13 year old cuisine in some states ?
 
Last edited:
....People from TX , AZ , NV etc can carry in those states . Why can't they in CA ? All those same people can drive and speak in CA so what's different about the right to bare arms ?
Click to expand...

With regard to carry permits, various States have decided unilaterally to recognize permits issued by other States, or some States have entered into carry reciprocity agreements. With regard to driver's licenses, all States have agreed among themselve to recognize the driver's licenses of other States.

In any case, these were things decided upon and undertaken independently by the States. These arrangements were not imposed on the States by federal legislation.

The core of the debate is not about carrying a gun or driving. It's about preserving what little is left of state sovereignty and not further expanding the power of the federal government.
 
The core of the debate is not about carrying a gun or driving. It's about preserving what little is left of state sovereignty and not further expanding the power of the federal government.
Click to expand...

As it SHOULD be
 
Thanks Frank , I did not know states recognizing other states drivers lic was not mandated by the Federal government .

The core of the debate is not about carrying a gun or driving. It's about preserving what little is left of state sovereignty and not further expanding the power of the federal government.
Click to expand...

On the whole I agree , how ever as we all know sometimes states like to infringe on individual rights and it can be helpful to have the feds there to step in .
 
On the whole I agree , how ever as we all know sometimes states like to infringe on individual rights and it can be helpful to have the feds there to step in.
Click to expand...
Except when the feds infringe more.

I can see why folks in some states want National Reciprocity. But I live in a state with good firearm laws and I don't want the feds coming in and trying to level the playing field. I like the laws in my state, that's part of why I live here. I don't want them changed to meet some federally defined standard because the odds are virtualy nil of it being the same or better than what I'm currently working with.

And that's apart from my objection on general principle--that I am virtually always opposed to the federal government involving itself in matters where it's not already involved. Not just because their track record is dismal but also because they're already far too involved in far too many things.
 
Paul Ryan, after blathering incessantly for over 20 years
about how he was "the servant of the little man" finally
had a chance to prove he really was
"a man of the people", and he sold us out. No surprises
there, but let's remember this, next election.
 
But I live in a state with good firearm laws and I don't want the feds coming in and trying to level the playing field.
Click to expand...
This is my biggest concern. If a national reciprocity proposal gains real momentum, expect Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin and the rest to do everything in their power to poison it. They will insist on all sorts of exceptions and restrictions. I'd expect to see things like legally-binding "no gun" signs, a ban on carry on any government property, and opt-out clauses for individual cities and/or counties.

What we'd actually get would be a net loss.
 
Although I agree there are those that would try to water it down . The way the Dems have been united . I can't see any of them voting for any carry laws . That may be the reason it appears it's dead in the water . That and as the last few posters have pointed out . It very well may hurt a few states so those (maybe few republican) senators in states in which it may actually weaken there carry laws wont vote for it either .

My guess is they barely have 40 votes depending on how it's written .
 
Tom Servo said:
This is my biggest concern. If a national reciprocity proposal gains real momentum, expect Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin and the rest to do everything in their power to poison it. They will insist on all sorts of exceptions and restrictions. I'd expect to see things like legally-binding "no gun" signs, a ban on carry on any government property, and opt-out clauses for individual cities and/or counties.

What we'd actually get would be a net loss.
Click to expand...

That is also my concern. National reciprocity may, at least in the short term, make it slightly easier regarding gun rights for 10 or so anti-gun states but substantially harder for the 40 or so pro-gun states. The law will be loaded with so many vague parts that it will be incredibly easy for a bureaucracy to warp it into whatever the current administration wants...
 
What we'd actually get would be a net loss.
Click to expand...

And that is almost a given. Nearly 50% of this nation's population live in less than 5% of the land area (in major urban centers). This populace is more than happy to live with arcane gun laws, and if they aren't they are free to move. Because of the above, any federal regulation on national reciprocity will impose on 95% of the land area some of the wishes of that 50% who freely live in areas with arcane gun laws. Why? Well its what half of the people want, that's why. Plus most in the federal government could care less about our 2A rights, even the ones who try to be seen as our allies (yes you republicans).

Which precisely explains why I'm not a proponent of national reciprocity. Probably 2/3rds of the States currently have pretty decent (I.e. free) gun laws. Were we to enact national reciprocity, the minority (being some of the most populas states) will not have their voice ignored.
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
But I live in a state with good firearm laws and I don't want the feds coming in and trying to level the playing field.
Click to expand...
This is my biggest concern. If a national reciprocity proposal gains real momentum, expect Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin and the rest to do everything in their power to poison it. They will insist on all sorts of exceptions and restrictions. I'd expect to see things like legally-binding "no gun" signs, a ban on carry on any government property, and opt-out clauses for individual cities and/or counties.

What we'd actually get would be a net loss.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I expect that even if we get a national carry law passed, the anti-gun crowd will do exactly as Tom suggests. I also expect them to insist on ridiculous training and licensure requirements at the federal level. I can almost hear it now . . . "If the good people of MY state are going to have to residents of other states to carry concealed weapons, then I demand that those residents undergo an 80-hour training course! And an additional 32 hours of range time! To keep my constituents safe, of course."
 
I favor national reciprocity but agree the devil is in the details.

I would expect that the states antithetical to carry would respond with draconian local laws banning carry in so many places as to make it useless. Malls, churches, schools, doctors' offices, restaurants that serve alcohol, public libraries - you name it.

Also, laws that forbid leaving a gun in the vehicle.

However, if it could be done and SCOTUS (fantasy world) or Congress would void such state laws - that would be nice. Dream on.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
I would expect that the states antithetical to carry would respond with draconian local laws banning carry in so many places as to make it useless. Malls, churches, schools, doctors' offices, restaurants that serve alcohol, public libraries - you name it.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what California does with open carry? Essentially you can exercise your right to bear arms openly but in the middle of nowhere.
 
added

CA has a lot of "the middle of nowhere" within its boundaries; other states, not so much.

I could see not only a HUGE list of exemptions, but also a requirement that the gun be unloaded while being carried.

Let this die and stay dead.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
I would expect that the states antithetical to carry would respond with draconian local laws banning carry in so many places as to make it useless.
Click to expand...
Additionally—to briefly reiterate an argument I made in past national reciprocity threads—I've speculated that anti-gun states could respond by ratcheting up handgun registration requirements to the point that few people from out-of-state will want to comply with them. They could also make this process so slow as to seriously discourage casual travel with a handgun.
FITASC said:
Let this die and stay dead.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Let this die and stay dead.
Click to expand...

haha , yeah until it comes to your state . Everything works from the outside in . As goes CA , goes the country . It's been this way for awhile . Look at CO and even some counties in TX . It's coming to a state near you it's just a matter of time .

Look at Ohio , the state is red but Cincinnati is blue blue blue and just about controls the whole state . Soon I expect Cincinnati will control the state as San Francisco and Las Angeles controls CA ( with San Diego trying to catch up ) . CA is a pretty moderate state outside the big counties/cities .
 
Everything works from the outside in . As goes CA , goes the country . It's been this way for awhile . Look at CO and even some counties in TX . It's coming to a state near you it's just a matter of time.
Click to expand...
If popular support for increased carry restriction is really spreading throughout the country then there's no hope and turning to the feds for help certainly isn't going to solve anything since, if anything, they will be more likely to support those restrictions than alleviate them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top