National Reciprocity is Dead

It was once a states rights issue that blacks were property and women couldn't vote.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It was, at the time, the established law of the land, and all the states agreed on it.

Later, that changed. Later still, the law was changed.

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.
Click to expand...

agreed, this is the ideal, what the Founders wanted for posterity. We don't quite have that today, and haven't for sometime, but its still the ideal.

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.
Click to expand...

While there are similarities, I think there are significant differences in the circumstances between the reciprocity issue under discussion and the issues of slavery, and denial of civil rights to blacks and women in certain states where the Federal govt did wind up stepping in.

HOW significant the differences are is worthy of discussion, I think, because we do need to see that there are differences between what the situation is today, with this issue and what went on in the past with those issues.

First off, those people in the past who suffered their rights denied were having that happen in the state of residence. At home. BY their own state govt. Also the mistreatment was being done to them because of who they were. Not because of something they wanted to do. I think this is something significantly different than not recognizing another state's permit.

I agree there are some of the same principles at work, but they are far from identical situations.

I'm going to use NY as the representative of the restrictive states, in general, recognizing that there are some differences between the various states and their laws.

So, if you go to NY, and don't carry a gun, NY doesn't care. NY isn't denying your right to carry in your home state, only in their state, because you do not meet their legal requirements.

And this is where things start to go sideways....

The national reciprocity act is a minimal intrusion to help the exercise of the right to carry -
Click to expand...

So, we agree that it is an intrusion...

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 -
Click to expand...

No, not requiring the state to issue a license to non-residents, only to recognize the non-resident license. Which might have issuance requirements vastly different from the state being "ordered" to recognize it.

And, no, not defining a state's laws...which are an internal matter to the state, where, as I understand it, at this time, the federal govt doesn't have the authority to do.

Which is one of the cruxes of the issue, the viewpoint of one side that the Fed does have that power, and of the other that the Fed does not.

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.
Click to expand...

Very nice language that says to the state(s) "you have to let non-residents carry (if they have a valid permit from home) but you get to choose when, and where.

What if the state chooses to say, ok, you can carry on your non-resident permit, never, in our state. This is essentially what we have now.

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
Click to expand...

Absolutely, they have done it with tax laws, and straight up gun control laws. And there is a significant set of case laws and court decisions that essentially say that there is nothing you own that is NOT in commerce. Even things you don't sell "affect" commerce, and therefore fall under the govt's authority.

Look at what happened to those wheat farmers....
Not something I agree with, but they keep telling us, it IS the LAW.

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.
Click to expand...

you answered your own question with the words "altering it". Even though to you, it was still the same "old" gun or magazine, just altered, to the law, you were making something "new" (by altering it) and that new thing was in the prohibited class.

No, the law didn't make sense, no, it wasn't a good law, but it was the law. They set a cutoff date on certain features. You couldn't put them on new guns, couldn't import gun with those features. AND if you did put them on a gun made/imported after the date, you were breaking the law.

Guns (and magazines) that pre-existed the cut off date (when the law went into effect) were grandfathered, they could have those prohibited features and still be sold. They could be modified with those features if they didn't already have them, and still be sold. They were exempt from that law.

SO, if the gun or magazine you modified existed before the law went into effect, you committed no crime. If you modified a gun/mag that fell under the law, then you were committing a crime doing so. Even if it was your own property.
 
zukiphile said:
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.
Click to expand...
This. The passage of a national reciprocity law, while allowing carry in those most restrictive of states, also provides a substantial step towards the federal gov't to establish national standards for issuance of CCLs. I, for one, don't want NY, CA, HI, NJ, MD, etc. representatives (against whom I cannot vote) to have any voice whatsoever in what standards AR has for for issuing me a CHCL.
 
Spats McGee said:
This. The passage of a national reciprocity law, while allowing carry in those most restrictive of states, also provides a substantial step towards the federal gov't to establish national standards for issuance of CCLs. I, for one, don't want NY, CA, HI, NJ, MD, etc. representatives (against whom I cannot vote) to have any voice whatsoever in what standards AR has for for issuing me a CHCL.
Click to expand...
They can do that any time they choose. Don't give them ideas.

Whether it's under the umbrella of a national reciprocity bill or addressed as free-standing legislation, carry across state lines is (or "affects) interstate commerce and could be address by federal legislation by invoking (as they always do) the interstate commerce clause. The feds could just say that nobody is allowed to carry a firearm outside of their state of residence unless a+b+c+x+y+z.
 
Aguila, thanks for that last observation. I think it could provide an opportunity to convey a point that isn't being absorbed.

AB said:
This. The passage of a national reciprocity law, while allowing carry in those most restrictive of states, also provides a substantial step towards the federal gov't to establish national standards for issuance of CCLs. I, for one, don't want NY, CA, HI, NJ, MD, etc. representatives (against whom I cannot vote) to have any voice whatsoever in what standards AR has for for issuing me a CHCL.
Click to expand...
They can do that any time they choose. Don't give them ideas.

Whether it's under the umbrella of a national reciprocity bill or addressed as free-standing legislation, carry across state lines is (or "affects) interstate commerce and could be address by federal legislation by invoking (as they always do) the interstate commerce clause. The feds could just say that nobody is allowed to carry a firearm outside of their state of residence unless a+b+c+x+y+z.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

Spats' point is different.

Carry laws are currently a matter of state police power. Making carry law within a state a federalized matter for the purpose of allowing it, also makes it a federalized matter for the purpose of prohibiting or licensing it.

That isn't something Congress ca do currently unless it posits a link to interstate commerce or some other basis for asserting federal power over the matter. Federally mandated reciprocity hands that point to those who would be happy to use federal authority to "regulate" carry.

If your response is that congress will just author whatever fiction to allow to do what it wishes, you might be right. Do you want to be the force that destroys that constitutional impediment to federal control?
 
A fascinating and informative discussion guys. This is the reason l value this site as highly as I do. We have a complex and ever changing system of government, and as Frank Ettin has informed me more than once, I don't understand everything I think I know about the law.:D

Balancing State's rights with a Constitutional central government, while limiting the power of both to keep government out of our personal lives is both the blessing and curse of our system. As disfunctional as our Federal government is at this point, I am reluctant to support giving them more control in any area of my life, gun control included.
 
Carry laws are currently a matter of state police power. Making carry law within a state a federalized matter for the purpose of allowing it, also makes it a federalized matter for the purpose of prohibiting or licensing it.
Click to expand...

This is THE risk. And, its a bigger risk than most people realize. Because our governments (State and Federal) have some traits in common with vampires.

Not only do they feed off our "blood" through various personal taxes, but generally, they cannot enter our homes unless invited (the first time). Once invited, THEN they can enter anytime, to their hearts content, and do whatever they wish once inside.

This particular law may only be "the camel's nose", but we know what the camel does in the story, once his nose is in your tent. And, the story stops short of the full truth. It only tells you how the rest of the camel will enter, and leaves out the fact that once the camel is in your tent, it will crap all over everything you value, AND stay there eternally, eating your food, taking up your space and crapping or spitting all over everything!

"Inviting" the Fed in, over such a trivial matter is a stupidly foolish risk to ALL our rights. Don't think for a moment that National Reciprocity isn't a trivial matter. Because, to the bulk of the country, it is a trivial matter.

Not that our right to self protection is a trivial matter, but the "right" to carry (and carry concealed) any and everywhere we wish to is, to the overwhelming majority of people in the US. Heck, it's even a trivial matter to many of the gunowners on "our" side. I'm one, and I freely admit that.

The people who are pushing for the Fed to force states to recognize their permits and allow carry in a state they don't reside in, are the ones who choose to be affected. Simply put, they choose to go to those states that do not recognize their rights. Their answer to this "problem" is to use the power of the Fed to force those states to do what they want, recognize their "right" to carry as NON-Residents.

I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Despite the fact that most of us would consider a level playing field (when it comes to carry laws) a good thing, it is still tyranny of the masses by the few. For the convenience of the few. People who travel to the restrictive states do so BY CHOICE!

And please, don't give me the argument that you don't have a choice, that your job requires it, or any other BS reason. Unless you are compelled by LAW, it is a choice. The fact that it may not be an easy choice does not matter. It is still your choice.

So, rather than make a difficult personal choice, these people are pushing Fed intervention to force the restrictive state to change it's choice about who can carry, how, where, and when, inside its state borders.

The sad, simple truth is that restrictive states are that way because the people living there WANT THEM TO BE!!! (or they simply don't care about the issue).

Where's the respect for democracy? Yes, democracy can make wrong choices, even bad choices. So, what's the answer??

Demand the use of Federal power (through a law?) to force the states to change what you (not they) feel is a bad decision? Because they are "violating the Constitution"?? (if they ARE violating the supreme law of the land, why would you think they wouldn't do the same with a "lesser", law??)

Maybe a better choice is to take them to court. Of course, there are drawbacks to that method as well. It's expensive. Its slow, and most importantly, you have to have standing. You have to be able to show some way you have been harmed by the law, as it currently exists. Good Luck with that one! ;)

Or you could move to the restrictive state, become a resident, so you can work within that state's legal system to change things.

I think that is the proper, and best way to effect desired change, but I don't see anyone lining up to make that the priority in their lives, so good luck making that happen, as well.

OR, you could just shut up about the whole matter, and live within the system as it exists, flawed and imperfect though it is. If you want to adhere to your principles, make those difficult personal choices so you can. Have nothing to do with restrictive states, in other words, simply don't go there. Or if you do choose to go there, don't go armed.

You HAVE a choice. I think inviting the power of the Fed to settle the matter to your satisfaction (and what ever are you going to do if they settle the matter and its NOT to your personal satisfaction???) which places all the rest of us at risk of having to suffer increased govt intrusion in our lives, is not the right choice to make.

Just my opinion, and possibly worth what you paid for it. :D
 
zukiphile said:
If your response is that congress will just author whatever fiction to allow to do what it wishes, you might be right. Do you want to be the force that destroys that constitutional impediment to federal control?
Click to expand...
I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

My example is marijuana. If you take a strict states' rights view, then if marijuana is legal in State A and a resident of State A grows some marijuana on land within State A, and harvests and dries the weed entirely within State A, and then smokes the stuff in the privacy of his house within the borders of State A -- a rational person would say, "This is a state matter, the feds have no jurisdiction."

But the feds claim they do have jurisdiction, because of the interstate commerce clause. And how did they assert "interstate commerce" authority over something that never crossed a state border? In fact, that may never have left our intredpid hero's own property? They claimed that his growing of marijuana "affected" interstate commerce because, if he HADN'T grown his own MJ entirely within State A, he might have otherwise bought marijuana that came from another state. Therefore, by NOT engaging in interstate commerce, he affected interstate commerce.

It's really quite simple. You just have to learn to think like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
But the feds claim they do have jurisdiction, because of the interstate commerce clause. And how did they assert "interstate commerce" authority over something that never crossed a state border? In fact, that may never have left our intredpid hero's own property? They claimed that his growing of marijuana "affected" interstate commerce because, if he HADN'T grown his own MJ entirely within State A, he might have otherwise bought marijuana that came from another state. Therefore, by NOT engaging in interstate commerce, he affected interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Which was the exact argument in Raich... I believe I warned folks about that, way back then.
 
I have not had a chance to read the bill. The Rep that was on the idiot box this morning stated that the bill would NOT ALLOW CCW in states or cities that have laws against such. EX. NYC, California, Massachusetts, are states and cities the Rep that is sponsoring the bill stated. Seems to me most folks pushing for this are folks living in states where the gun laws are quite restrictive.
 
Don P said:
The Rep that was on the idiot box this morning stated that the bill would NOT ALLOW CCW in states or cities that have laws against such.
Click to expand...
If it doesn't force states (and cities) with laws prohibiting concealed carry to allow the RKBA ... what's the point? I can already carry in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and a few other states if I go there, and for most other states I can get a non-resident permit from somewhere that they'll honor. It's New York, New Jersey, Maryland and California that are the problem.
 
NYC does not have a law against concealed carry.
Click to expand...

NYC doesn't NEED a law against concealed carry, they already have a law against possession/carry without a NYC permit. And, NY CITY does NOT recognize permits issued by NY STATE!!!

That's right, forget about getting NYC to recognize your out of state permit, NYC doesn't even recognize the permits issued by their own state government!!

Been that way for generations, and both the NYC and the NYS governments are fine with it.

I'm sure it's a bit of an overbroad generalization, but it seems to me that the only people in NY who aren't "fine" with the handgun laws there are people that own a pistol, or want to....

I grew up in New York State. Got a pistol permit there in 1975, at age 18! (yes, 18, not 21) 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs (passport type) 3 character references, investigation by about every law enforcement agency NY had, and THEN, it was entirely up to the issuing judge to issue or not.

The (state) permit said right on it, "Not valid in NYC".
and, that permit was valid to possess (and open carry only) ONLY those pistols listed on the permit, by make, caliber, barrel length, and serial number!

If you think the people running NYC and NYS today are more reasonable and open minded about gun rights today than they were 40+ years ago, you might be a prime candidate to buy a bridge, in Brooklyn...:rolleyes:
 
Well, I was for national reciprocity before I was against it. :(I just read where Senators Feinstein and Schumer are trying to or have tacked that fix NCIS bill to the reciprocity bill and that some Democrat in the House is planning on doing the same. Note that the MSM isn't saying anything about that other than IIRC, FOX News. Methinks this bodes ill gentlemen. :mad:
Paul B.
 
If all they want to do is "fix" NICS, not drastically expand it to require universal background checks, I don't think many of us have a problem with that. I do happen to think that NICS, 4473s, and the entire carry permit/license scheme are massive violations of the 2A, but that's what we have. As long as we have NICS, it might as well function properly.

So if we can get national reciprocity (with teeth!) in exchange for allowing them to fix NICS, I can abide by that. I think both parties want to fix NICS anyway, after that Texas church massacre, so by all means let's use that as a bargaining chip for reciprocity.
 
I grew up in NYC, have lived in many other states. Just say NO to national reciprocity or ANY other involvement by the Federal Gov't. It is NOT worth having that camel share your tent. The regs will be set by NJ, NY, CA, etc and NOT by AZ, WY or VT. There is NO compromise with the antis; they only want to completely destroy us. "Death by 1000 cuts" comes to mind.
 
I see a lot about what might happen to national reciprocity or could happen. it seems most people here are not opposed to what is in the bill today. I'll go with what it says now and worry about what happens to it later, later. It certainly would be nice for me in it's present form as I live in PA right up against the NY border.
 
A thought came to me after reading the posts about letting the camels nose in under the tent.....what would prevent the federal government from currently doing the opposite, forbidding reciprocity between states under the interstate commerce clause?
 
what would prevent the federal government from currently doing the opposite, forbidding reciprocity between states under the interstate commerce clause?
Click to expand...

To name a few, and in no particular order,

public sentiment

The fact that it would be a huge issue in their re-election bids

The fact that is it not an indisputable fact that they have the legal authority to do so...

Remember it takes the same authority to demand "you will" as it does to command "thou shalt not". And that authority is not a settled issue at this time.

If it was, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor would we need a new law. If that authority existed, then national reciprocity, or its opposite could be done with a simple Presidential fiat.

since that is not the case at this time, I'd think that would stop the govt from doing what you suggest.
 
And just because Congress might be found to constitutionally have the power to do something doesn't mean that the thing is politically feasible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top