National Reciprocity is Dead
- Thread starter steve4102
- Start date
Well, clearly we can't get anything at all from the feds right now--that's why the bill is dead. IMO, expecting something "halfway decent" when we apparently can't get anything at all doesn't make much sense.
But let's assume that the bill suddenly started moving again and now "halfway decent" is on the table. I don't want something that's "halfway decent". What I have (and what people in most states currently have) is considerably better than "halfway decent". "Halfway decent" might be attractive to the minority of persons who want to carry in the handful states that are on the most restrictive end of the spectrum and a neutral proposition for the states that currently have only "halfway decent" concealed carry laws, but I doubt that the majority of the states would be happy with having their systems degraded to "halfway decent".
And even assuming that we could get something halfway decent from the feds and everyone is ok with only halfway decent, why would there be an expectation that it would stay that way for any reasonable amount of time? There's nothing like stare decisis to discourage Congress from changing its mind and making things more restrictive next year or next term.
But let's assume that the bill suddenly started moving again and now "halfway decent" is on the table. I don't want something that's "halfway decent". What I have (and what people in most states currently have) is considerably better than "halfway decent". "Halfway decent" might be attractive to the minority of persons who want to carry in the handful states that are on the most restrictive end of the spectrum and a neutral proposition for the states that currently have only "halfway decent" concealed carry laws, but I doubt that the majority of the states would be happy with having their systems degraded to "halfway decent".
And even assuming that we could get something halfway decent from the feds and everyone is ok with only halfway decent, why would there be an expectation that it would stay that way for any reasonable amount of time? There's nothing like stare decisis to discourage Congress from changing its mind and making things more restrictive next year or next term.
The premise I was putting forward and thought you had just agreed to is if the country moves with CA . The country as a whole in 20+ years will be more restrictive then it is now . Like the once great gun state of CO that now has mag restrictions amongst other new anti gun laws . Those types of restrictions will now be in other great free states like AZ or TX ( examples ) as the country becomes more like CA . This will happen because as CA becomes incredible tax heavy . It's residents will relocate bringing there left coast ideologies with them .
So in twenty years and are kids/grand kids are saying these gun laws are just to restrictive we need to pass a reciprocity law . Do you expect are/there side to have more votes or less votes then we have now ?
I'm thinking long game , how do you see the 2nd amendment in 20 years . I can tell you from living in CA for my entire life . 25 years ago the gun culture here was quite different then it is now . We've been giving 2" and taking back 1" year after year and it has dug a hole so deep we are not likely to get out of it with out a huge event from the federal government . If we can't get that now . I fear the country may never be able to stop the decline of the 2nd amendment as the ideologies of the edges close in on the rest of the country .
So in twenty years and are kids/grand kids are saying these gun laws are just to restrictive we need to pass a reciprocity law . Do you expect are/there side to have more votes or less votes then we have now ?
I'm thinking long game , how do you see the 2nd amendment in 20 years . I can tell you from living in CA for my entire life . 25 years ago the gun culture here was quite different then it is now . We've been giving 2" and taking back 1" year after year and it has dug a hole so deep we are not likely to get out of it with out a huge event from the federal government . If we can't get that now . I fear the country may never be able to stop the decline of the 2nd amendment as the ideologies of the edges close in on the rest of the country .
I understand what you're saying, I just don't see how it supports pushing for national reciprocity.
Let's say we get it now and things get worse later as you say. Is there some reason to assume that Congress wouldn't simply tighten up the law to match the worsening conditions, thereby leaving things exactly the same as if we passed the law then instead of now?
But more to the point, if I don't want the feds messing with my state's laws at all, why would the prospect of things being worse in 25 years suddenly make me want the fed to mess with my state's law?
I go into a restaurant and the guy says that I MIGHT be able to order the hamburger if things work out just right. I tell him I don't want a hamburger and I'll have a hot dog instead. He tells me that if I don't order the hamburger now, it will be more expensive later and will also be smaller and less fresh. How does that change my situation? It doesn't--in fact, it makes me want the hamburger even less than when I first came in.
I live in fear of a huge event from the federal government.
Let's say we get it now and things get worse later as you say. Is there some reason to assume that Congress wouldn't simply tighten up the law to match the worsening conditions, thereby leaving things exactly the same as if we passed the law then instead of now?
But more to the point, if I don't want the feds messing with my state's laws at all, why would the prospect of things being worse in 25 years suddenly make me want the fed to mess with my state's law?
I go into a restaurant and the guy says that I MIGHT be able to order the hamburger if things work out just right. I tell him I don't want a hamburger and I'll have a hot dog instead. He tells me that if I don't order the hamburger now, it will be more expensive later and will also be smaller and less fresh. How does that change my situation? It doesn't--in fact, it makes me want the hamburger even less than when I first came in.
I've lived in TX for something like 35 years. Just the reverse is happening here. 25 years ago the handgun carry laws were very restrictive--it was nearly impossible to carry a handgun legally and there was no permit system at all. For the last two decades or so, practically every legislative session has made things better and less restrictive.
I live in fear of a huge event from the federal government.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I don't want the feds to pass a national reciprocity bill. There are too many ways that could go sideways for me, and for gun owners generally. I especially dislike the prospect of licensing requirements being dictated by folks that I can't vote out of office, like the distinguished Congressfolk from Illinois, NY, and CA.
With that said, I wouldn't object to a separate federal CCL, valid in all states, but IMHO, that's got the same chance as the proverbial snowball in hell. I'd much rather see a Compact for the Carrying of Concealed Weapons from the ABA, but given the path they're taking, that's unlikely to happen.
With that said, I wouldn't object to a separate federal CCL, valid in all states, but IMHO, that's got the same chance as the proverbial snowball in hell. I'd much rather see a Compact for the Carrying of Concealed Weapons from the ABA, but given the path they're taking, that's unlikely to happen.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Sadly, as I would like reasonable shall-issue across the country, we will not see it.
I'm convinced by the discussion. Local progress is all that is possible. Restriction of rights will depend on state issues, demographics and moral panics due to some incident.
I'm convinced by the discussion. Local progress is all that is possible. Restriction of rights will depend on state issues, demographics and moral panics due to some incident.
And what if the Fed version had more restrictions than your own state? Which would rule?
Just look at public education or any other "one-size-fits-all" social program the Feds have become involved since FDR. All abject financial catastrophes with a huge amount of regulations most don't read or know about. I can see all sorts of back door garbage being tied to this as well.
Just say NO; let your wallet and your vote do your talking.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
A federal shall issue might work unless it was so restrictive.
Theoretically, purists would argue for just being a law abiding citizen with no other requirements.
Or you could have draconian training requirements, mandated insurance, magazine limits, high expense and the like.
So for a thought experiment - let's say each state had its ability for its own local version. States could decide reciprocity (and they do look at training, etc. now). However, the national version would have the requirements of the current TX version. https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/faqs/index.htm
If you aren't a purist - would that be acceptable?
Theoretically, purists would argue for just being a law abiding citizen with no other requirements.
Or you could have draconian training requirements, mandated insurance, magazine limits, high expense and the like.
So for a thought experiment - let's say each state had its ability for its own local version. States could decide reciprocity (and they do look at training, etc. now). However, the national version would have the requirements of the current TX version. https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/faqs/index.htm
If you aren't a purist - would that be acceptable?
Spats M said:
Spats, that's an excellent laugh line.
GEM said:
Lots of us would like that result, but the way we get there matters too.
GEM said:
If you don't mind a tweek to your thought experiment, let's say that Congress decides that armed carry is a matter of interstate commerce and that it will pre-empt state regulation, regulating it to the exclusion of the states.
How long before CA successfully pursues a waiver, the sort of waiver it has for automobile emission regs, from the federal government. Then NY and IL. Now you have Congress regulating carry in Vermont, but NY, CA and IL regulating it in their states.
The people of Vermont and the Dakotas probably have enough influence over their legislators to weather the hysteria that follows the next Terrible Thing. Will Congress resist the urge to do something? Whatever they do is now part of the federal pre-emption that regulates people in Vermont and the Dakotas.
In the current conversation on federal tax reform, the idea of eliminating the deduction for state income taxes has been floated, but the opposition of NY, MA and CA are thought to be so politically costly that no viable bill will contain such a reform. As a political matter, looking at the places with the laws we like least gives us fair warning of the direction in which they would turn federalization.
Another twist on your experiment would be to give the incorporated federal right a more generous reading, maybe a federal due process requirement in order to deny the right. I like that better than congressional pre-emption, but it gets us back to much the same problem -- a congress that represents people with very different ideas about the scope of the right, or even its legitimacy as a right. Would the senate confirm several more federalists?
It's hard to see greater federal control working out for the better.
Last edited:
As John, I see your point but I don't think it's accurate in every way. CA does lead the nation toward liberal trends in many ways... but in other ways it does not. Specifically with firearms (also as John said), I feel that it is easier than ever before to CCH in my state. There is real discussion about abolishing our current pistol permitting system (it's a left over Jim Crow law anyway, IMO). And... the same has actually been observed nationwide. 20 years ago we had to deal with the national AWB (thank God for the sunset provision). Now, we don't. 20 years ago the issue of the 2A being an individual right had not been settled by SCOTUS... now it has been recognized as a federal and incorporated right. So, like it or not, CA can desire to ban firearms altogether all they want, but they can not. It will not work. We have won some very real victories for gun rights over the past 20 years, let's not forget or overlook that.
I would like to see reciprocity happen but I don't seeing it's implementation without a net loss.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Zuik makes some excellent points in regards to preemption, which was not on my mind when I wrote my last post.
My apologies to everyone if I was a bit muddled and confusing.
That question only comes into play if state and federal law conflict with each other. There's not necessarily a conflict between a more-restrictive federal CCL and a more-permissive state one. We wouldn't know if there was until we'd analyzed the language involved. As I noted above, I wasn't thinking about preemption when I last wrote. I was thinking about a Federal CCL that one could get in addition to, or as an alternative to, one's state CCL, if one so desired.FITASC said:
My apologies to everyone if I was a bit muddled and confusing.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
First I've heard of that one. Less than 5% of population and declining. Now, Columbus which is approaching ten, on the rise, and is the capitol sure seems to get what it wants.
Besides our blues are redder than most of your reds
Once we get Brown out and a pro-gun democrat to replace we will be set.
CalmerThanYou
New member
Any regulation overseen at the federal level is going to become a problem. Not exactly the same, but having spent my career in the real estate appraisal business, I can tell you as fact that when the Federal powers decide on something it is unstoppable and seldom a positive factor.
Nattering nabobs of negativism.
I remember when the wise and knowledgeable told me:
There will never be a supreme court decision upholding the 2nd as an individual right. (Heller)
Concealed carry laws will never pass in most states (virtually every state)
Concealed carry laws are bad as they license a right and will prevent passage of a clean unlicensed right to carry. (More and more states after seeing shall issue concealed carry work have started to pass unlicensed carry)
It's a fools errand to even defend "assault weapons" - we need to cut our losses and not seem unreasonable by trying to defend them. (Assault weapon ban expires and is not renewed or replaced and so called assault weapons become single most popular rifle in US)
It's crazy to think the NFA can be modified or the restrictions on silencers removed. Personally told I was crazy more than a decade ago for saying the the way to get it lifted was to attack it over health concerns and hearing loss. (Now solid movement to get it taken off NFA)
National reciprocity it bad or dead - yeah heard that one too.
I remember when the wise and knowledgeable told me:
There will never be a supreme court decision upholding the 2nd as an individual right. (Heller)
Concealed carry laws will never pass in most states (virtually every state)
Concealed carry laws are bad as they license a right and will prevent passage of a clean unlicensed right to carry. (More and more states after seeing shall issue concealed carry work have started to pass unlicensed carry)
It's a fools errand to even defend "assault weapons" - we need to cut our losses and not seem unreasonable by trying to defend them. (Assault weapon ban expires and is not renewed or replaced and so called assault weapons become single most popular rifle in US)
It's crazy to think the NFA can be modified or the restrictions on silencers removed. Personally told I was crazy more than a decade ago for saying the the way to get it lifted was to attack it over health concerns and hearing loss. (Now solid movement to get it taken off NFA)
National reciprocity it bad or dead - yeah heard that one too.
Mack , I think what you describe is likely a direct result of all the anti gun laws and proposals that where being past or floated as possibilities . I believe this has been a big feed back loop and thank goodness it happened and many voted to insure it could happen .
We keep seeing this happen with many different proposals the Federal government tries to implement . The feds say we want to do this and the states say NO we will not help you implement that , in fact we are going to write laws the fight against that very thing . We see that with gun control , immigration , recreational drugs to name a few . I'm not that old but likely well past the half way point of my life and I don't remember a time where the states were openly fighting the feds on so many fronts .
I'm still undecided if this is a good thing or a bad thing .
We keep seeing this happen with many different proposals the Federal government tries to implement . The feds say we want to do this and the states say NO we will not help you implement that , in fact we are going to write laws the fight against that very thing . We see that with gun control , immigration , recreational drugs to name a few . I'm not that old but likely well past the half way point of my life and I don't remember a time where the states were openly fighting the feds on so many fronts .
I'm still undecided if this is a good thing or a bad thing .
I've stated it before getting the Feds involved with nation wide carry is a disaster waiting to happen. Examples, VA, IRS, Obama Care, and the list goes on. For me the government has way to much control over my every day life and the last thing I want to do is give those 534 idiots any more control over me. This is a can of worms that needs to stay sealed shut. My view is if you live where the gun laws suck, if possible move. If that is not an option do your best to get others involved and petition your congressional leaders to make changes.
Remember, its supposed to be a country where the government is in fear of the people and not the people fearing the government.
Remember, its supposed to be a country where the government is in fear of the people and not the people fearing the government.
The Federal government plan is a one-size-fits-all (that fits no-one), will be filled with pork projects unrelated to the subject matter at hand, will have either not enough funding or drastic cost overruns and will not accomplish what it was originally intended to do - as has EVERY Federal social program since FDR. We need LESS of their intrusion, not more.
brian33x51
New member
The bill of rights is to protect US (the people) from THEM (the federal government). Based on the 10th amendment I can pretty clearly understand how more regulation from the government is a bad thing.
While having national reciprocity is theoretically a good thing, I don't see how it works without the federal government itself establishing guidelines for concealed carry which is clearly a violation of both the 10th and 2nd amendments. We need lots and lots and lots of laws stricken from the books, not more laws added to them.
While having national reciprocity is theoretically a good thing, I don't see how it works without the federal government itself establishing guidelines for concealed carry which is clearly a violation of both the 10th and 2nd amendments. We need lots and lots and lots of laws stricken from the books, not more laws added to them.