National Reciprocity is Dead

Unless you keep it stupidly simple, "States will recognize carry permits issued by other states as if it was issued by that state," you'll get a lot of unintended consequences...

As always, the devil is in the details.
 
It really doesn't matter how simply it is put.
Some states simply don't believe you should be carrying a gun. It doesn't matter to them that self defense is a right because they don't even allow you to openly carry in public. Why would they want you to have a gun they can't see?
I don't believe even a unanimous decision by the supreme court would get the laws changed in states like New York and California.
It all comes down to power. Armed citizens are more difficult to control and that reduces the power they have over the citizens.
 
At this point, I don't think anything that expands gun rights will make it through Congress to become law in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

Agreed , The ban on the slide fire stock will be signed into law and both side will then slink back to there protective corners not wanting to rock the boat any more . The pro gun groups should know getting anything passed anytime soon is not going to happen and the anti's in red states want to be reelected in 2018 so they won't press anything more then the ban on slide fire stocks .
 
If they lose enough lawsuits, and get called out for passing laws the courts already struck down...
Click to expand...
They don't pay the legal bills, we do. There is basically no criminal charge for passing laws in contempt. It just drags on and drains un-believeable resources in court cases. My first time around after several years and draining the coffers my organization won. The state then changed the law from 5 to 4.9 and we were faced with the whole process again.
Look at how long the Heller series of cases has taken in DC and it still hasn't amounted to general access.
 
From Senator Feinstein:

Thank you for contacting me to share your support for the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017” (S. 446). I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On February 27, 2017, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017”. While I understand that you support this legislation, I am concerned it would allow an individual to carry his or her weapon into California even if they didn’t meet the safety requirements needed in our state. In so doing, this legislation would enable the concealed carry laws of one state to nullify the laws of other states which have stronger safety restrictions on concealed carry permits.

It is my belief that concealed weapons laws that may work in rural areas may not be suitable in urban areas. What is good for Alaska or Wyoming may not be good for California or New York. The problem with a federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity is that it would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit. For example, it would force California to recognize concealed carry permits issued by the State of Alabama, which does not require an applicant to undergo training to safely operate a firearm. Therefore, I strongly oppose concealed weapons license reciprocity.

Similarly, I am concerned that concealed carry reciprocity puts law enforcement personnel in potentially dangerous positions. California sets sensible limits for those who wish to obtain a concealed weapon permit. While felons are excluded from obtaining a concealed carry permit in any state, California’s rules also disqualify individuals convicted of a violent misdemeanor and those who are subject to a temporary restraining order from obtaining a concealed carry permit. California also requires all applicants to undergo safety training. California law enforcement officials should not be put in the compromising position of determining whether an out-of-state concealed carry permit is valid. Additionally, out-of-state permit holders should not be given wider latitude to carry concealed guns compared to California permit holders. As a result, I oppose any legislation that would interfere with California’s ability to enforce these standards.

While we must respectfully agree to disagree on this issue, knowing your views is important to me and I appreciate hearing your perspective. Should you have any other questions or comments, please call my Washington office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at feinstein.senate.gov. You can also follow me online at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and you can sign up for my email newsletter at feinstein.senate.gov/newsletter.

Best regards.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
 
"The problem with a federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity is that it would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit."
Click to expand...

State's Rights.

And yet, she has no problem with banning "assault weapons" and "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices" at the federal level.

Sigh...
 
And yet, she has no problem with banning "assault weapons" and "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices" at the federal level.
Click to expand...

Probably because her "sensible state" already bans such evil things, and that it would be a good, sensible idea if the rest of the country did as well.

I never held any hope for a National Reciprocity concealed carry. It simply will never happen, though it ought to. Yes, it ought to be recognized, just like driver's licenses, but it's not. Its a gun law. Every state WANTS to recognize other states driver's licenses, and marriage licenses. They (rightly) see that as bringing people, and their money, into their state.

With a CCW permit, its totally different, first off because by the numbers, CCW is almost insignificant number of people, compared to drivers licenses, etc.

Second, some states (meaning the administrations governing them) don't see recognizing other states permits as a benefit, they see it as a risk to their state.

The response from Sen Feinstein clearly shows the attitude, they don't want to recognize permits from any place that does not have the same issue requirements as their state does.

And, the law allows for this. While the law generally requires "full faith and credit" recognizing the acts of other states, there is, in the law specific language allowing for exceptions.

IT is, under the law, a State's right to be as pigheaded and stupid about anything the people living there want. And make no mistake, in the restrictive states, enough of the people want that, or simply don't care about it, to allow, or even keep the state govt on that path.
 
The problem with Senator Feinstein's problem is that pesky Second Amendment. The stuffy old, one-sentence amendment that says something about a "right" (whatever that is) to keep and bear arms.
 
Well, isn't part of the current front in the battle over gun rights the issue of determining how far "and bear arms" extends outside of the home?
 
Sure it's just like free speech. You can exercise free speech as long as you are in your home but never outside your home. Isn't it the same for all rights? (sarcasm now off)
 
SonOfScubaDiver said:
Well, isn't part of the current front in the battle over gun rights the issue of determining how far "and bear arms" extends outside of the home?
Click to expand...
Yes -- but if we had a Supreme Court that had any gumption AND actually followed the Constitution, this would be a non-issue.

What does the Second Amendment say? Do the words "inside the home" or "outide the home" appear anywhere in the 2A? Answer: No.

What has happened is that the Heller case both helped us and kneecapped us. It's important to remember what the question was in Heller. The case was in Washington, DC. The District of Columbia had a law prohibiting the keeping of a loaded, functional firearm within one's own residence. The plaintiffs (of whom Dick Heller was the only one still involved when it reached the Supreme Court, which is why the case now bears his name) had sued specifically to overturn this restriction. He didn't ask about carrying on the street -- he asked to be allowed to keep a loaded, functional firearm in his residence.

And the Supreme Court decided that, contrary to what the anti-gun forces had been saying ever since Miller, the 2A DID guarantee an individual right. Since the question before the court was within the home, that's the question they answered. But the 2A doesn't guarantee two separate rights, one to "keep" arms and a second, unrelated right to "bear" arms. That would have necessitated using the word "right" in its plural form. What the 2A addresses is "the right" (note -- singular) to keep and bear[/i] arms.

There is some language in Heller about "in the home," but it's there because that's what the whole case was about. It doesn't mean that the 2A applies only within the home. What I believe Justice Scalia meant with his regrettable reference to "other presumptively lawful regulations" was basically "We know there are other laws on the books, they are not the subject of today's case, so we're not talking about them."

The bottom line is that the 2A guarantees a "right" to keep and bear arms. The Heller case finally determined that this is an individual right -- we don't have to be in the National Guard to keep and bear arms. McDonald then established that the 2A does apply to the states as well as to the federal government. And that's where Feinstein's argument falls apart. we DO have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms, and that right shall not is not supposed to be infringed. Any regulation is an "infringement," and California's maze of draconian anti-gun laws effectively prohibit the bearing of arms to most people in most of the parts of California where one most needs to carry. National reciprocity would force California closer to observance of the Constitution, and that's not what they want.

So ... you are correct in that much of the debate today is over whether or not the 2A applies outside the home. It's a phony question, for the reasons I've laid out above.

The other front in the debate today is what kinds of "arms" are protected by the 2A. The anti-gun types want to ban anything that looks remotely like a military firearm. Yet the sense of the 2A is that the People should be allowed to bear the same arms as the military. Heller makes reference to guns in popular use (or similar language -- I didn't look it up). The AR-15 is unquestionably one of the THE most popular firearms types in use in the United States today. It is NOT an M16 or an M4, so it is not a "military" or "military type" firearm -- it doesn't have selective fire. Period. In WW1 the United States used the 1903 Springfield rifle. That was a military firearm. It was built by the official, U.S. government arms factory, Springfield Armory. To be logical, then, the anti-gun types should be claiming that any bolt action, centerfire rifle is a "military type" firearm with no legitimate civilian use, and should therefore be banned.

(Yeah, I know -- don't give them any ideas.) You can see how that argument just doesn't make sense. Cosmetic features don't determine what a gun is for. The Ruger Mini-14 fires the same cartridge as the AR-15, and has a detachable magazine. But it doesn't have a pistol grip, so it doesn't look all scary-like and "military." Will a .223 round from a Mini-14 kill you just as dead as a .223 round from an AR-15? Probably. So they're just playing their usual game. Today they're after easily identifiable cosmetic features. Once they ban AR-15 pattern rifles, then they'll come back for semi-auto, centerfire rifles in general. Then they'll come after bolt-action centerfires, and after that ...
 
Aguila, from what I've read on the subject, which admittedly isn't very extensive, you have provided one side of the argument. Even if the courts view "keep and bear" as two separate issues to address, and they determine it as separate or one in terms of rights, I don't know that it would make a difference in a court challenge against national reciprocity. I'm in favor of national reciprocity, but I'm also in favor of states determining their own training requirements for permit holders. So, it gets too complicated for a simple guy like me to decide who's right and who's wrong. I will say that it appears to me that Feinstein is taking an argument often used in other political issues and throwing it in the face of those in favor of reciprocity. I mean, her name certainly doesn't pop into my mind when I think about states rights. lol
 
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.
Click to expand...

The proposed legislation has nothing to do with ‘Federal regulation’ or ‘oversight.’ It seeks only to render concealed carry permits to function more like driver’s licenses.

This also isn’t a states’ rights issue, given the fact national reciprocity would be devoid of Federal regulatory provisions.

Your Florida concealed weapon license would be valid in New York when visiting or traveling through New York.

If you become a resident of New York, however, you must surrender your Florida license and obtain a New York permit pursuant to New York law.

That’s why the ‘argument’ that national reciprocity would ‘undermine’ the more restrictive concealed carry requirements of some states isn’t valid, just as the states’ rights ‘argument’ isn’t valid.
 
SonOfScubaDiver said:
Even if the courts view "keep and bear" as two separate issues to address, and they determine it as separate or one in terms of rights, I don't know that it would make a difference in a court challenge against national reciprocity. I'm in favor of national reciprocity, but I'm also in favor of states determining their own training requirements for permit holders. So, it gets too complicated for a simple guy like me to decide who's right and who's wrong.
Click to expand...
That's because you've missed the big picture -- ALL permitting schemes are, ultimately, unconstitutional. So the notion that states should be allowed to determine their own requirements for permit holders is moot, because if the "right" to keep and bear arms is to actually be a "right" -- and is not to be infringed -- then the entire concept of permits to exercise that "right" is a flawed concept.

And, yes, I am aware that various of the lawyer types, here and elsewhere (including some I respect highly, such as Frank Ettin) have noted that all constitutional rights have historically been subject to "reasonable" regulation. But that's based on history, and that history applies to other rights in the Bill of Rights. Other of those rights may indeed be subject to reasonable regulation. Take the Fourth Amendment, for example:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."​
So we are (theoretically) protected against UNreasonable searches and seizures. That automatically means that we are subject to reasonable searches and seizures. Who decides when a search or a seizure is "reasonable"? A judge.

But ... I respectfully submit that none of the other rights enumerated or suggested in the Bill of Rights expressly says, right within itself, that it is NOT subject to "reasonable" (or unreasonable) regulation. Only the Second Amendment says this. It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What is a regulation if not an infringement? The Second Amendment, when read honestly and objectively, tells us that it is NOT subject to regulation. And in this it is unique among all the rights in the Bill of Rights.
 
That’s why the ‘argument’ that national reciprocity would ‘undermine’ the more restrictive concealed carry requirements of some states isn’t valid, just as the states’ rights ‘argument’ isn’t valid.
Click to expand...

I believe you are entirely wrong about this, and that states rights IS a valid argument.

This also isn’t a states’ rights issue, given the fact national reciprocity would be devoid of Federal regulatory provisions.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but anything from the Fed telling states what they must do involves state's rights. Now, sometimes states agree with the Fed, and sometimes they do not. And when they do not, it is usually that they have the right to disagree.

We already HAVE national reciprocity. Its just some states don't agree to it. Much as I hate to argue the side of restrictive laws, the states that choose not to recognize CCW permits from other states have a right, in law, not to do so, if they so choose.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
The other front in the debate today is what kinds of "arms" are protected by the 2A. The anti-gun types want to ban anything that looks remotely like a military firearm. Yet the sense of the 2A is that the People should be allowed to bear the same arms as the military. Heller makes reference to guns in popular use (or similar language -- I didn't look it up). The AR-15 is unquestionably one of the THE most popular firearms types in use in the United States today. It is NOT an M16 or an M4, so it is not a "military" or "military type" firearm -- it doesn't have selective fire. Period. In WW1 the United States used the 1903 Springfield rifle. That was a military firearm. It was built by the official, U.S. government arms factory, Springfield Armory. To be logical, then, the anti-gun types should be claiming that any bolt action, centerfire rifle is a "military type" firearm with no legitimate civilian use, and should therefore be banned.

(Yeah, I know -- don't give them any ideas.) You can see how that argument just doesn't make sense. Cosmetic features don't determine what a gun is for. The Ruger Mini-14 fires the same cartridge as the AR-15, and has a detachable magazine. But it doesn't have a pistol grip, so it doesn't look all scary-like and "military." Will a .223 round from a Mini-14 kill you just as dead as a .223 round from an AR-15? Probably. So they're just playing their usual game. Today they're after easily identifiable cosmetic features. Once they ban AR-15 pattern rifles, then they'll come back for semi-auto, centerfire rifles in general. Then they'll come after bolt-action centerfires, and after that ...
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Pretty much every commonly-used and owned firearm in this country is either a military design or based off a military design. They'd have to ban every single gun there is essentially to ban military guns. But the idea of the right to keep and bear arms is the right to the basic weapons of war. It is not about possessing weapons selectively approved of by the government for the lowly citizens to use. It is about the right of the people to possess weapons of war.

Part of the problem is this brainwashing of many that weapons of war are only for the Almighty State to control. They are not. Yes, there are certain classes of weapons that people don't have a right to possess, but as far as basic arms go, such as pistols, rifles, shotguns, knives, swords, bow-and-arrow, etc...people have a right to the same weapons a military would use.

But, IMO, much of the modern gun rights movement shoots itself in the foot, no pun intended, on this, by constantly insisting that a weapon such as an AR-15 is not a military weapon, because it is semiautomatic. It is stupid. It very much is a military weapon, just one lacking the automatic fire feature, and gun rights proponents should point this out, and point out that ALL guns are military in origin, and that that is the whole point behind the concept of the right. Trying to argue that this or that gun is not "military" is playing defense and playing right into the gun controllers' hands because it gives up the idea of any right to weapons of war. Acknowledging that yes they are military and people have a fundamental right to possess basic weapons of war, is offense and a way to undermine a key argument of the gun control lobby.

The AR-15 is a semiautomatic version of the M-16. Civilians, law enforcement, and the military all use them (and yes I know that law enforcement are also technically civilians, but I am using the different terms to make a point)

The 12 gauge pump-action shotgun is used by the U.S. military, law enforcement, and civilians. It has been used in every military conflict of this nation since WWI, and during WWI was nicknamed by the Germans the "Trench Broom," and they wanted any American soldiers captured using it to be tried for war crimes.

The Remington 700 bolt-action rifle, a very popular hunting rifle, is used by the military and law enforcement as a sniper rifle. Other bolt-actions are plenty useful as sniper rifles and the bolt-action mechanism is military in origin.

The lever-action rifle is a military design, the first one created during the Civil War by the Union, called the Henry rifle.

The .45 caliber 1911 handgun was created as a military handgun and used by the military for years. Also has been used by civilians and law enforcement for years.

The 9mm handgun is used by the military, law enforcement, and civilians and has been for years.

Breech-loading muskets were used by military and civilians.

Muzzle-loading muskets were used by military and civilians.
 
jdc1244 said:
This also isn’t a states’ rights issue, given the fact national reciprocity would be devoid of Federal regulatory provisions.
Click to expand...

In simple terms, firearm carry regulations are a matter of federal jurisdiction or a matter of state jurisdiction. If they are a matter of federal jurisdiction for the purpose of compelled CCW reciprocity, they will also be a matter of federal jurisdiction when congress shifts and decides that you can't carry anything more effective than a very soft pillow.

If it is a state matter, the huge populations of NY and CA get a terrible deal, but lots of people in other states get more reasonable treatment from their neighbors.

This will not be a federal issue just for the purpose of mandatory reciprocity.
 
I hear and understand both sides of this as far as states rights vs federal jurisdiction goes...

But it sure would be nice to get national reciprocity... I'm a truck driver, I have no say in where I go, if the load goes to NY I have to take it there.

I'd be satisfied with a revision of 18 US code 926a... One that was known, clearly written, and enforced without having to worry about being the example some leo or judge decides to make.

If I can't carry it on me, at least standardize the means by which I may carry it WITH me through the states that won't allow CCW.

The struggle is real for millions of people who travel for work.

Just make it so we can travel in these states, with the gun locked away, and not be struggling with the decision of how to play it in a traffic stop when we're asked if we have any weapons... I respect laws and the people who's job it is to enforce them... I'd prefer to answer that question honestly when asked and know exactly what was going to happen next.

But as it is... You just never know what to expect... You may answer honestly then find yourself in an expensive legal battle because the LEO didn't know, and/or the judge/DA don't care.

A traveler would still have to be aware of magazine capacity and ammo restrictions... But at least we wouldn't have to be unarmed EVERYWHERE in the US, simply because 1 or 2 states don't allow CCW.

926a was meant to do this.... But it just wasn't written clearly enough... It leaves you wide open and bent over if you HAVE to stop overnight or get off the federal highways.

I think this could be done without infringing on the states rights issue.... This is a states rights vs the 2A issue.... And a fight that can be won I think.

If you agree.... Send letters and emails to the NRA, GOA, and anybody else with some clout to push for this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top