National Reciprocity is Dead

[mack59]

Not bad enough we have to fight gun banners all day everyday - we have to fight fuds over AR15's, property rights advocates over being able to keep a firearm in your own vehicle, and pre-civil war and marbury vs madison states rights advocates over national reciprocity.

Yeah national reciprocity kind of like a federal law stopping states banning free speech or banning rights for minorities or women - how awful.

 

[steve4102]

It appears that National Reciprocity may be moving forward to a floor vote.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ciprocity-concealed-carry-nearing-floor-vote/

 

[ATN082268]

Yeah national reciprocity kind of like a federal law stopping states banning free speech or banning rights for minorities or women - how awful.

If it were just a matter of jettisoning the draconian gun laws of the 10 or so anti-gun states, then I'd agree with you. I don't believe it will turn out that way though. If National Reciprocity passes, I suspect the remaining 40 or so pro-gun states will have more restrictive gun laws as there will likely be some uniform standard for buying, carrying, etc. guns/ammo. If that is the case, your analogy won't be correct as the majority will have their rights curtailed and the minority will have their rights enhanced.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

National reciprocity is getting a floor vote in the House. We'll see if it goes anywhere in the Senate.

On another note, the worst possible RKBA bill moves forward. The SHARE Act even with the Hearing Protection Act stripped out would be a much bigger win for gun owners. Instead, we get a (potential) small short term win that lets the Feds put down roots in CHL accreditation. The only unforeseen aspect of that is whether it will be the Dems or GOP who slip the knife in.

 

[Don P]

A can of worms that should never be opened. Tell me one thing the government has done that they have NOT SCREWED UP ????? What comes as a result of this that the majority of us do not need?? Registration?? States have registration in place. Which in my opinion gives the nit-whits in DC a way to get their hands up my kiester and the opening for confiscation when the time is right

 

[zukiphile]

National reciprocity is getting a floor vote in the House. We'll see if it goes anywhere in the Senate.

On another note, the worst possible RKBA bill moves forward. The SHARE Act even with the Hearing Protection Act stripped out would be a much bigger win for gun owners. Instead, we get a (potential) small short term win that lets the Feds put down roots in CHL accreditation. The only unforeseen aspect of that is whether it will be the Dems or GOP who slip the knife in.

One can hope. Democrat office holders also have constituents who may not all think strategically.

I question whether federally mandated reciprocity will be a short term win.

If this were to pass, it would almost certainly face an immediate challenge. If the challenge is successful, we will have a NY or CA case over-turning it. Despite what the decision may say, it will be popularly greeted as a partial roll-back of Heller. (Do we think Clarence Thomas would see this regulation of intrastate activity as authorized by the commerce clause?).

If it survives challenge it produces precedent for the proposition that intrastate carry is a matter of federal regulation, which has to be the very opposite of the meaning of the text of the 2d Am. It will do for liberal carry laws in most states what Obergafell did for state marriage laws.

 

[rburch]

If it were just a matter of jettisoning the draconian gun laws of the 10 or so anti-gun states, then I'd agree with you. I don't believe it will turn out that way though. If National Reciprocity passes, I suspect the remaining 40 or so pro-gun states will have more restrictive gun laws as there will likely be some uniform standard for buying, carrying, etc. guns/ammo. If that is the case, your analogy won't be correct as the majority will have their rights curtailed and the minority will have their rights enhanced.

Yet nothing remotely like your scenario is in the bill.

The bill specifically avoids setting any standards for buying, carrying, etc.

It literally says that if a state issues Concealed carry permits, or has Constitutional carry, then it has allow anyone who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry concealed.

The methods of carry, types of guns allowed, mag capacity, places you can't carry, etc. Are all still set by each state.

The only area even close is that it prohibits states from banning carry on many federal lands.

So no matter how many times people say it I still can't see how this Bill as written does anything to undermine Gun Rights, or CCW.

Yes it could be changed to do so, but if your basis for opposition is that it might be changed, then you have to oppose every single bill no matter what.

 

[62coltnavy]

JERRYS. does anyone really want the federal government involved in your carry right? petition your state reps for reciprocity with other states.

California has not and will never grant reciprocity to ANY other state. The powers that be have decided that fewer guns=fewer gun crimes. Which is why it is so hard to get a CCW in large urban areas, and why the state legislature is doing everything it can to ban as many guns as it can.

 

[LogicMan]

IMO, I do not believe National Reciprocity would survive in the courts. You can bet your butt that IF it manages to pass both the House and Senate and get signed into law by President Trump, that immediately the anti-gun states and cities will all file suit against it. And given how these various courts and judges have no problem blatantly violating the Heller decision and the Constitution period in upholding these various crazy "Assault Weapons" Bans, I have no doubt that they would do the exact same thing in refusing to uphold National Reciprocity. And then the Supreme Court would probably decline to hear the case, and we'd be back to square one.

 

[armoredman]

be just like everything else they oppose - lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, with leftist federal judge after leftist federal judge putting a "hold" on the law forever. I still want the SHARE Act to go through, but I think it may be dead forever as well.

 

[zukiphile]

Yet nothing remotely like your scenario is in the bill.

The bill specifically avoids setting any standards for buying, carrying, etc.

It literally says that if a state issues Concealed carry permits, or has Constitutional carry, then it has allow anyone who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry concealed.

The methods of carry, types of guns allowed, mag capacity, places you can't carry, etc. Are all still set by each state.
***

As you've described it, Who carries isn't set by the state, but Congress. If Congress can grant a right to carry over the laws of a state, it can revoke that right over the laws of a state.

State laws are generally getting more liberal. Congress is the body that decided that for a decade you shouldn't be able to buy a new rifle with a bayonet lug, flash suppressor and 11 round magazine.

When you federalize a matter, like carry within a state, you make an all or nothing bet that Congress won't turn on you at their convenience.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If Congress can grant a right to carry over the laws of a state, it can revoke that right over the laws of a state.

They already can do this as we saw with the AWB and NFA- the right to have certain weapons and configurations were and are strictly controlled.

Some states have more liberal gun laws and some are increasing controls. The issue is whether a federal law that instantiates should be considered protected under the BOR will be passed.

The states rights issue is an old one. Lest we forget that argument was used to allow states to institute racially based tyrannies. Federal action broke those.

I do not see why well crafted Federal legislation cannot break the unconstitutional actions of the states in a similar manner.

Of course, it could go bad. What if the Feds instituted a law that only property owners of a certain level could vote? Oh, wait.

 

[rburch]

As you've described it, Who carries isn't set by the state, but Congress. If Congress can grant a right to carry over the laws of a state, it can revoke that right over the laws of a state.

State laws are generally getting more liberal. Congress is the body that decided that for a decade you shouldn't be able to buy a new rifle with a bayonet lug, flash suppressor and 11 round magazine.

When you federalize a matter, like carry within a state, you make an all or nothing bet that Congress won't turn on you at their convenience.

Except they don't decide who carries. Each state still decides the permitting requirements for the people living in their state.

You say state laws are getting liberal, but this bill if passed will mean I can drive the faster way home from work without committing 54 felonies because a less than 1 mile section of road is randomly determined to be in another state.

 

[zukiphile]

As you've described it, Who carries isn't set by the state, but Congress. If Congress can grant a right to carry over the laws of a state, it can revoke that right over the laws of a state.

State laws are generally getting more liberal. Congress is the body that decided that for a decade you shouldn't be able to buy a new rifle with a bayonet lug, flash suppressor and 11 round magazine.

When you federalize a matter, like carry within a state, you make an all or nothing bet that Congress won't turn on you at their convenience.

Except they don't decide who carries. Each state still decides the permitting requirements for the people living in their state.

For the people living outside their state, the federal government enforces different rules if federally mandated reciprocity is the rule.

You say state laws are getting liberal, but this bill if passed will mean I can drive the faster way home from work without committing 54 felonies because a less than 1 mile section of road is randomly determined to be in another state.

State laws are getting more liberal, yet are not uniformly as liberal as they should be. Its outrageous that a state would make it a felony for you to carry, but how that is fixed matters.

 

[zukiphile]

If Congress can grant a right to carry over the laws of a state, it can revoke that right over the laws of a state.

They already can do this as we saw with the AWB and NFA- the right to have certain weapons and configurations were and are strictly controlled.

Neither the NFA nor AWB were carry restrictions. The NFA is a taxing provision and the AWB was a restriction on new sales; FFLs were still permitted to transfer items that were prohibited for new sale under the AWB.

The states rights issue is an old one. Lest we forget that argument was used to allow states to institute racially based tyrannies. Federal action broke those.

You aren't obligated to value federalism or any of the structure of rights and powers described in the COTUS. It does place one in a uniquely poor position to argue the protections of the 2d Am. to also argue that its structures are mere antiques to be associated with racism.

I do not see why well crafted Federal legislation cannot break the unconstitutional actions of the states in a similar manner.

In order for it to work in a similar manner, you will need any restriction on the possession and carry of arms to be subjected to strict scrutiny by the courts. In the absence of the certainty of application of that doctrine, federalization of intrastate carry gives the representatives of NY, CA, HI and NJ a voice in the carry policy of KY, VT, GA, OH and TX. It doesn't require superhuman foresight to foresee a future Congress manifesting its hostility to the right through legislation pertaining to carry.

Of course, it could go bad. What if the Feds instituted a law that only property owners of a certain level could vote? Oh, wait.

Glenn, understanding why federalizing the issue could open the door for Congress to make it "go bad" isn't a small part of the point.

 

[rburch]

federalization of intrastate carry gives the representatives of NY, CA, HI and NJ a voice in the carry policy of KY, VT, GA, OH and TX. It doesn't require superhuman foresight to foresee a future Congress manifesting its hostility to the right through legislation pertaining to carry.

How does it give them a voice they don't already have?

They could propose a law that requires training and federal background checks for CCW now at any time.

How does passing this law somehow give them the ability to do something they can already do?

 

[mack59]

Materially this law would be a huge step towards allowing carry in restricted states - with people visiting being able to carry those states politicians would be put in the position of defending restrictive issue carry laws on their own citizens that don't apply to visitors from out of state. A difficult position to defend. One that would open the door to pushing through shall issue in some if not all of those states.

As per previously stated, passage of this law would not give the federal government any power that it already couldn't exercise at anytime by passing restrictive gun laws - they already historically have and they can/could at anytime in the future. This reciprocity law sets no precedents.

As per this law being the subject of lawsuits from the states - so what - what difference does that make - all federal laws are so subject.

 

[zukiphile]

They could propose a law that requires training and federal background checks for CCW now at any time.

How does passing this law somehow give them the ability to do something they can already do?

As per previously stated, passage of this law would not give the federal government any power that it already couldn't exercise at anytime by passing restrictive gun laws - they already historically have and they can/could at anytime in the future. This reciprocity law sets no precedents.

Can either of you cite a single federal restriction on purely intrastate carry (i.e. carry entirely within a state and not involving federal agents or lands and not involved in interstate commerce)?

If you can't, why do you think that is?

 

[44 AMP]

As per previously stated, passage of this law would not give the federal government any power that it already couldn't exercise at anytime by passing restrictive gun laws

I don't see it that way. Look at all previous Federal gun laws. They don't require the states to do anything. This one, does.

Ok, you can consider it "federal mandate, lite" but its still a federal mandate on state actions.

Consider for a moment the other side of the issue. States rights. And please, don't think states shouldn't have rights, or that their rights don't matter because you (or I) happen to disagree with them.

You want to carry everywhere, for personal protection, I get that. But, how does your desire (not right) play out when you go to your neighbors home?

You don't get to decide if you can carry there, THEY DO. Its their property.

If your argument for wanting the Fed to force states to allow you to carry is the "shall not be infringed" part of the Constitution, I agree, in general principle, but to have the moral high ground to make that claim, you'd better get all the FEDERAL infringement repealed first. And not just NFA34, GCA 68 and the others but including restriction on carry on Federal property. Courthouses, Federal buildings, etc. And GUN FREE ZONES at schools, airports, etc.

I'm afraid all I see in this issue is a very small, but very vocal minority risking having the rest of us live under increased restriction of our firearms rights, so their lives will be a little easier. And, that's if they WIN...

I grew up in a very restrictive state. I live in a much less restrictive state now, and I simply do not want more restrictions on my life, in order that you can feel better about yours. I get it, that you want to have a level playing field. We SHOULD have one, we should have kept the one we made in the 1790s.

We didn't. And today, because we didn't then, we can't now, not without raising the restrictions on those who have none or few, in order to convince those who have many to accept fewer.

I don't have a dog in this fight, in once sense, since I don't travel to restrictive states. But I do have a dog in this fight in the sense that any FEDERAL action will affect me and mine.

 

[mack59]

It was once a states rights issue that blacks were property and women couldn't vote. Heller recognized the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right and McDonald incorporated that right to the states.

Ensuring that people may exercise their inalienable rights is at the core of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Individual rights should supersede government powers of the federal or state government.

Much like the federal government had to step in to ensure the rights of blacks and women earlier in this past century it is necessary that it do so in states that restrict the inalienable rights of citizens in states that deny their exercise.

The national reciprocity act is a minimal intrusion to help the exercise of the right to carry - not requiring a state to issue a carry license, not defining a states carry laws as to where or when or how one may legally carry - except to say that if carry is legal then individuals who are licensed to carry in another state may carry in that state subject to that states restrictions on manner, time, and place.

Of course no prior federal carry legislation has been passed as the 2nd wasn't formally acknowledged as an individual right applicable to the states until Heller and McDonald recently.

Federal law seems to have had no problem in the least in the past regulating private possession or ownership of firearms even if not in commerce. During the assault weapons ban me taking my own rifle and altering it with a group of modifications or a modification that created a so called assault weapon was a crime as was modifying a magazine to take more than 10 rounds.