National Right To Carry Reciprocity
- Thread starter FLA2760
- Start date
By mandating reciprocity for certain weapons under certain conditions, it implicitly denies or marginalizes the right to carry other weapons, or to carry weapons under other conditions.
First, it arbitrarily excludes fully-automatic weapons and DDs from concealed carry reciprocity, for no good reason.
Second, it defines a set of places where concealed carry is off-limits. It applies to states that do not allow concealed carry. Such states could override the restricted-places list with their own -- if they pass concealed carry laws.
I doubt the bill's sponsors gave that list much thought, and such a list should be very carefully thought out. The list should be absolutely minimal, and it's not: Polling places? Police stations? Restaurants with bars, even for people who aren't drinking? Sports events? Government meetings? The reality is that the sponsor added those in simply to appease people he thought would object to the law.
Third, by granting concealed carry reciprocity only for guns, it marginalizes knives and all sorts of other weapons.
jkkimberfan
New member
Non-Residents
Any bill should ensure NON resident licenses are good in all 50 states. Because the most populous states such as California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Illinois DO issue CCW licenses but they are impossible to get in reality. If any bill does not make non residents licenses (such as the Flordia license) legal in all states just like the resident issued licenses, than it needs to be fixed and include all ccw licenses, resident and non resident! If a bill passes which does not allow non resident licenses, then this means 1/3 of the country's population will not be able to ccw! California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Illinois residents who can only get a non resident FL, UT, VA, ME, NH, CT or WA license will sol. NON resident licenses must be included equally. That is alot of people left out, just because many in their states are socialists at heart and vote left wing Democratic. And please do not say; move out of these anti states. It isn't so simple, many like myself are trapped in anti LIB states for job or family reasons.
Any bill should ensure NON resident licenses are good in all 50 states. Because the most populous states such as California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Illinois DO issue CCW licenses but they are impossible to get in reality. If any bill does not make non residents licenses (such as the Flordia license) legal in all states just like the resident issued licenses, than it needs to be fixed and include all ccw licenses, resident and non resident! If a bill passes which does not allow non resident licenses, then this means 1/3 of the country's population will not be able to ccw! California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Illinois residents who can only get a non resident FL, UT, VA, ME, NH, CT or WA license will sol. NON resident licenses must be included equally. That is alot of people left out, just because many in their states are socialists at heart and vote left wing Democratic. And please do not say; move out of these anti states. It isn't so simple, many like myself are trapped in anti LIB states for job or family reasons.
Which is why I originally stated the reasons I objected to the "federal" approach (see my post #9). But...Handy said:
The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art. IV section 1) states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Your DL is a public act. Just like a Marriage License - the how of why your marriage is valid in all states.
That also makes it a privilege, which is further protected by the 14th. Not at all the same as the Alaska payments.
Simply because the Court has never applied the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th, doesn't mean the Congress cannot.
I would still prefer the states form a compact for reciprocity rather than give any more power to the feds.
Pocketgun, regardless of which route the feds take, it would force the states to recognize all of our CCW's.
Helmetcase
New member
It's really easy to oppose this kind of law when you already live in a state that allows CCW. We've got a long fight ahead of us here in MD, and if the Feds wanna help, I'll take it. We'll worry about the obscure and pie in the sky implications that federal action has later. Right now, there are armed criminals roaming the streets of my city--and no, I can't move for various reasons--and I need CCW NOW! That's clearly more important than handwringing about the Feds. Espcecially since, as Tyme points out, this bill just means MD can't prosecute me for carrying on my VA permit.
What's the status of this bill? Languishing in committee like HR 1243?
Edit: Oops maybe not. Any of these bills need to be amended such that MD can't keep me from carrying even though I have a VA permit. Why should a Virginian get to carry here but I can't?
What's the status of this bill? Languishing in committee like HR 1243?
Edit: Oops maybe not. Any of these bills need to be amended such that MD can't keep me from carrying even though I have a VA permit. Why should a Virginian get to carry here but I can't?
I'll restate my objection:
If you are a Wisconsin resident you can't get a CCL because your representatives didn't create one for you.
So why should some guy from Indiana be able to carry in your state when you CAN'T?
In that case, the Federal government is protecting unequal protection under the law.
How would you like it if visitors didn't have to pay sales tax? If they could turn right on red, but you can't? Maybe they can go 45 MPH in unposted areas, but you can only go 35?
That's the kind of thing this bill does - make some other state's citizens above your state's laws.
This would go to SCOTUS pretty quick, and get shut down. It is unfair to the states, and unfair to their citizens. It is extraterritoriality.
If you are a Wisconsin resident you can't get a CCL because your representatives didn't create one for you.
So why should some guy from Indiana be able to carry in your state when you CAN'T?
In that case, the Federal government is protecting unequal protection under the law.
How would you like it if visitors didn't have to pay sales tax? If they could turn right on red, but you can't? Maybe they can go 45 MPH in unposted areas, but you can only go 35?
That's the kind of thing this bill does - make some other state's citizens above your state's laws.
This would go to SCOTUS pretty quick, and get shut down. It is unfair to the states, and unfair to their citizens. It is extraterritoriality.
Handy, do you think marriages shouldn't be recognized in a particular state unless they meet the criteria for marriage in that state?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm
Talk about inequality... some states even have different minimum age requirements for males and females!
Modern transportation and business requirements make interstate travel no big deal, and yet some states have drastically different laws.
Allowing non-residents to ccw, provided they have a license in some other state, doesn't somehow neglect the state's residents who can't carry. They chose to live there. People who are just visiting didn't choose to live there, so they shouldn't have to suffer the silliness of the state's laws.
Of course, people need jobs, and sometimes they have to move to an unfriendly state to avoid a large pay cut and/or a change of careers. That seems to me like a good reason to completely federalize laws that are likely to trip people up -- weapons laws, marriage laws, etc. If people can't travel or move to a new state with the assurance that their marriage, their possessions, and their means of self defense will be legal in the new state, that is a serious problem. That's the kind of thing I would expect travelling between countries. It's not supposed to be that way travelling between states.
I think we need a whole slew of federal amendments to deal with these problems, but I don't know exactly what those amendments should say.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm
Talk about inequality... some states even have different minimum age requirements for males and females!
Modern transportation and business requirements make interstate travel no big deal, and yet some states have drastically different laws.
Allowing non-residents to ccw, provided they have a license in some other state, doesn't somehow neglect the state's residents who can't carry. They chose to live there. People who are just visiting didn't choose to live there, so they shouldn't have to suffer the silliness of the state's laws.
Of course, people need jobs, and sometimes they have to move to an unfriendly state to avoid a large pay cut and/or a change of careers. That seems to me like a good reason to completely federalize laws that are likely to trip people up -- weapons laws, marriage laws, etc. If people can't travel or move to a new state with the assurance that their marriage, their possessions, and their means of self defense will be legal in the new state, that is a serious problem. That's the kind of thing I would expect travelling between countries. It's not supposed to be that way travelling between states.
I think we need a whole slew of federal amendments to deal with these problems, but I don't know exactly what those amendments should say.
It doesn't sound like you think a state has a right to set it's own drinking age, or enforce that age limit. Wisconsin used to allow everyone, regardless of residence, to drink at 19. The drinking age in IL was 21, but that didn't matter.
Laws go with places, and affect the people standing in those places. You want laws to go with people, and follow them around. It sounds like a class system.
BTW, it may be legal to have two wives in Yemen, but you don't get to keep both as a citizen here. So the marriage license is a good example of the problem. I doubt a licensed gay marriage in Massachusetts (or whereever) is going to hold much water with the tax people in Georgia.
Driver's licenses have reciprocity because the states agreed to that amongst themselves, and all states offer that license. CCL isn't so codified - what reciprocity do you get with a Vermont no-license-needed?
Laws go with places, and affect the people standing in those places. You want laws to go with people, and follow them around. It sounds like a class system.
BTW, it may be legal to have two wives in Yemen, but you don't get to keep both as a citizen here. So the marriage license is a good example of the problem. I doubt a licensed gay marriage in Massachusetts (or whereever) is going to hold much water with the tax people in Georgia.
Driver's licenses have reciprocity because the states agreed to that amongst themselves, and all states offer that license. CCL isn't so codified - what reciprocity do you get with a Vermont no-license-needed?
+1 on Tyme's reasoning. Handy, I don't like it that a law-abiding resident of a no-carry (or de facto no-carry state) cannot be legally armed, but disarming me while I am visiting doesn't restore their rights either.
As for the no full-auto/DD for carry, I don't like it. Then again, does anyone actually carry such weapons for self-defense? To do so seems incredibly ill-advised to me for a whole variety of reasons which all on this thread can probably imagine. So that being the case, it seems a very small price to pay, especially if its inclusion allowed residents of no-carry states to carry on non-resident permits.
As for the no full-auto/DD for carry, I don't like it. Then again, does anyone actually carry such weapons for self-defense? To do so seems incredibly ill-advised to me for a whole variety of reasons which all on this thread can probably imagine. So that being the case, it seems a very small price to pay, especially if its inclusion allowed residents of no-carry states to carry on non-resident permits.
This isn't about the Federal Government making new laws. This is just about the Federal Government enforcing it's own constitutional powers that give it the right to regulate how the states behave with each other. We tried this in the 1860's where the states wanted a very loose federal government, and the states to have more power. It didn't work. The Federal Government is merely trying to say that if someone has some right in one state, it should be recognized in another state.
Right, like to drink at a certain age, gay marriage, grow certain crops, helmet laws, etc.
CCLs aren't the only inequity between different states - why is that the only thing being addressed? Or is it not that simple?
You guys are essentially arguing that one state has no right to restrict anything with a law that some other state doesn't have. Why have state governments?
CCLs aren't the only inequity between different states - why is that the only thing being addressed? Or is it not that simple?
You guys are essentially arguing that one state has no right to restrict anything with a law that some other state doesn't have. Why have state governments?
Helmetcase
New member
Why can't VA simply refuse to honor my Maryland Drivers License then?
There are some things that just need to be universal for pragmatic reasons. I'm willing to agree that guns are one of them. Why is a Virginian any more entitled to defend himself than I am?
We have a bill in committee in Maryland that'll probably never see the light of day, but it's much more explicit. It simply says that MD has to honor every other state's permits. Got a bunch of cosponsors on it this morning while lobbying....
There are some things that just need to be universal for pragmatic reasons. I'm willing to agree that guns are one of them. Why is a Virginian any more entitled to defend himself than I am?
We have a bill in committee in Maryland that'll probably never see the light of day, but it's much more explicit. It simply says that MD has to honor every other state's permits. Got a bunch of cosponsors on it this morning while lobbying....
They could. Suppose W. VA started issuing driver's licenses to 14 year olds without any sort of instruction or test. Would VA still honor those licenses? No. Is there a federal law forcing them to? No.
Among the many problems with this bill, it not only deprives a state of the ability to choose IF people, but WHO can carry in their state.
If some state decides they want to allow felons to get a CCL, are you happy with the fact that a federal law forces your state to let them carry in your home town too? That's another thing you're giving up.
Really, this bill gives states the ability to effectively create federal law, because it gives states the right to enforce their laws in all the other states.
Among the many problems with this bill, it not only deprives a state of the ability to choose IF people, but WHO can carry in their state.
If some state decides they want to allow felons to get a CCL, are you happy with the fact that a federal law forces your state to let them carry in your home town too? That's another thing you're giving up.
Really, this bill gives states the ability to effectively create federal law, because it gives states the right to enforce their laws in all the other states.
Actually, what this bill doesn't do is force States to abide by the laws of other states. What it does is prevent states from nullifying the permissions given by their sister states.
If State A allows it's citizens to perform a certain act provided they pass a "test" then State B should not be allowed to nullify that authorization.
Why not? Because State B has no power to revoke the authorization of State A. State A has no power to force State B to issue the same authorization to State B citizens BUT State B should not be able to impute it's denials onto the citizens of another state. Even if those citizens are within the confines of State B.
The best analogy I can come up with has nothing to do with driving or marriage licenses. Community Property laws are enforceable across state lines even in non-community property states. Why? Because State B cannot nullify the laws of State A even if the person is in State B at the time.
If State A allows it's citizens to perform a certain act provided they pass a "test" then State B should not be allowed to nullify that authorization.
Why not? Because State B has no power to revoke the authorization of State A. State A has no power to force State B to issue the same authorization to State B citizens BUT State B should not be able to impute it's denials onto the citizens of another state. Even if those citizens are within the confines of State B.
The best analogy I can come up with has nothing to do with driving or marriage licenses. Community Property laws are enforceable across state lines even in non-community property states. Why? Because State B cannot nullify the laws of State A even if the person is in State B at the time.
Rob,
State B doesn't have the power to nullify anything that happens WITHIN state A.
This bill wants to tell state B that people FROM state A don't have to follow state B's laws in state B.
Just like a motorcycle helmet law. A Wisconsin driver's license does not allow you to not wear a helmet in a state that requires it.
And, as I already posted, I'm sure you'd have a hard time working out a divorce for a gay couple in a state that has no gay marriage.
State B doesn't have the power to nullify anything that happens WITHIN state A.
This bill wants to tell state B that people FROM state A don't have to follow state B's laws in state B.
Just like a motorcycle helmet law. A Wisconsin driver's license does not allow you to not wear a helmet in a state that requires it.
And, as I already posted, I'm sure you'd have a hard time working out a divorce for a gay couple in a state that has no gay marriage.
But if you're 18 you can go to a state that allows instant marriages at 18, get married, then immediately go to a state that allows marriage at 21 or after a several-day wait, and your marriage will be legally recognized.
It all depends on how you view weapon carry. Personally, I don't view weapon carry as doing anything. People are just minding their own business unless/until they draw the gun. Therefore, the notion that "State B doesn't have the power to nullify anything that happens WITHIN state A" doesn't really apply, since nothing's really happening.
It isn't state B that's nullifying anything, it's the federal government. And if you're this upset about this bill, what are your thoughts about the FOPA, in particular the peaceable journey laws? Do you think a state should be able to criminalize the carry of guns in a trunk or in a locked container?
It all depends on how you view weapon carry. Personally, I don't view weapon carry as doing anything. People are just minding their own business unless/until they draw the gun. Therefore, the notion that "State B doesn't have the power to nullify anything that happens WITHIN state A" doesn't really apply, since nothing's really happening.
It isn't state B that's nullifying anything, it's the federal government. And if you're this upset about this bill, what are your thoughts about the FOPA, in particular the peaceable journey laws? Do you think a state should be able to criminalize the carry of guns in a trunk or in a locked container?
Helmetcase
New member
Actually they couldn't because of ICC. For a long time NJ residents have had to be 17 to drive, but I could drive in NJ on my MD license at 16.
The felon issue is a thorny one, but I can't see any state giving felons CCW rights right now so not one I'm particularly worried about. I'll be straight with you though, I really do just want to see MD and DC muscled out of preventing me from carrying.
Ben Swenson
New member
Hate to sound cynical, but here's what I see happening if this gets passed:
The day after it goes into effect, a random TFLer from (for example) Indiana straps on their piece and drives to Chicago. Our protagonist is smiling and walking down the street when a police officer happens to notice them printing.
"SIR! Keep your hands where I can see them and turn around to face the wall. Down on your knees, cross your legs and put your hands on the back of your head. I'm going to disarm you now. Do you have any other weapons or drugs on you?"
Befuddled, the TFLer responds. "Huh? Oh, well I've got my pocket knife ... and in addition to the 1911 you've already taken, I keep a Kel-Tec in my front pocket ... but officer, I've got a permit to carry a handgun, it's in my wallet. Due to the passage of new federal legislation, Illinois must now accept my Indiana permit and I believe I am in full compliance with the law."
Here, the officer snorts as he roots around in our TFLer's pocket for the Kel-Tec, dropping the magazine as he pulls it out. "So youre one of those huh? All right, well I see your federal law and raise you Illinois' brand spankin' new list of prohibited places for handgun carry. And I quote: 'No individual outside of Law Enforcement or other government service who possesses a permit to carry a firearm may carry a handgun or other weapon in or about the vicinity of:
Any bar, liquor store or commercial establishment that serves alcohol.
Any church or place of worship.
Any non-interstate public road.
Any playground, park, school, school zone, daycare, school activity, university or business that caters to children.
Any public sidewalk or pedestrian crossing.
Any vehicle of public transportation.
Any athletic facility.
Any bank or financial institution.
Any police station, fire station or hospital.
Any government office, government building or government-owned, leased or rented property.
Any hotel, motel or other temporary lodging.
Any apartment building or complex with more than 10 residents.
Any public parking lot.
Any commercial establishment that does more than $200 in gross sales in a day.'
Pal, you were in violation of at least half a dozen of those when I caught you. You're under arrest for carrying a handgun without a permit. You have the right to remain silent..."
I'd give the statists no more than a few months before every state that already lacked concealed carry laws had a similar set of prohibited areas for carry. Hell, I bet a few "may issue" places would set up something similar.
The day after it goes into effect, a random TFLer from (for example) Indiana straps on their piece and drives to Chicago. Our protagonist is smiling and walking down the street when a police officer happens to notice them printing.
"SIR! Keep your hands where I can see them and turn around to face the wall. Down on your knees, cross your legs and put your hands on the back of your head. I'm going to disarm you now. Do you have any other weapons or drugs on you?"
Befuddled, the TFLer responds. "Huh? Oh, well I've got my pocket knife ... and in addition to the 1911 you've already taken, I keep a Kel-Tec in my front pocket ... but officer, I've got a permit to carry a handgun, it's in my wallet. Due to the passage of new federal legislation, Illinois must now accept my Indiana permit and I believe I am in full compliance with the law."
Here, the officer snorts as he roots around in our TFLer's pocket for the Kel-Tec, dropping the magazine as he pulls it out. "So youre one of those huh? All right, well I see your federal law and raise you Illinois' brand spankin' new list of prohibited places for handgun carry. And I quote: 'No individual outside of Law Enforcement or other government service who possesses a permit to carry a firearm may carry a handgun or other weapon in or about the vicinity of:
Any bar, liquor store or commercial establishment that serves alcohol.
Any church or place of worship.
Any non-interstate public road.
Any playground, park, school, school zone, daycare, school activity, university or business that caters to children.
Any public sidewalk or pedestrian crossing.
Any vehicle of public transportation.
Any athletic facility.
Any bank or financial institution.
Any police station, fire station or hospital.
Any government office, government building or government-owned, leased or rented property.
Any hotel, motel or other temporary lodging.
Any apartment building or complex with more than 10 residents.
Any public parking lot.
Any commercial establishment that does more than $200 in gross sales in a day.'
Pal, you were in violation of at least half a dozen of those when I caught you. You're under arrest for carrying a handgun without a permit. You have the right to remain silent..."
I'd give the statists no more than a few months before every state that already lacked concealed carry laws had a similar set of prohibited areas for carry. Hell, I bet a few "may issue" places would set up something similar.
Anti-gunners have a knee-jerk reaction against concealed carry legislation. They're on the whole not clever or evil enough to pass a concealed carry law just to spite people from other states. Theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.
I'm starting to really hate both of these laws (hr4547 and hr1243). A real national ccw reciprocity law needs to override place restrictions and the list of items that are legal to carry. Just about any concealable, targettable weapon should be fair game, with the possible exception of DDs (although Jayne Cobb might have some choice comments about laws forbidding carry of grenades).
It would also be nice to sneak language like this into such a bill: "...any person who can legally carry a concealed weapon in any one state can carry a concealed weapon in any state" (as opposed to specifically requiring a permit issued by some arbitrary state). Voila! No permit necessary.
I'm starting to really hate both of these laws (hr4547 and hr1243). A real national ccw reciprocity law needs to override place restrictions and the list of items that are legal to carry. Just about any concealable, targettable weapon should be fair game, with the possible exception of DDs (although Jayne Cobb might have some choice comments about laws forbidding carry of grenades).
It would also be nice to sneak language like this into such a bill: "...any person who can legally carry a concealed weapon in any one state can carry a concealed weapon in any state" (as opposed to specifically requiring a permit issued by some arbitrary state). Voila! No permit necessary.