National Right To Carry Reciprocity

[Hugh Damright]

I roll my eyes at any state that denies its citizens their right to self-defense.

Some States don't allow CCW, but I am not aware of any State in the US where self-defense is against the law.

Virginia is a Shall-Issue state, so I take back my rolling eyes. Unfortunately, it sort of invalidates the only point (I thought) I saw in your entire post.

I think the point is clear: The idea of the feds forcing a State without CCW to recognize permits from other States, such that a State's own Citizens can't CCW but visitors can, is antithetical to our form of government.

 

[Ben Swenson]

The more I think about it, this reminds me of HR 218 more than a little.

 

[pocketgun]

Some States don't allow CCW, but I am not aware of any State in the US where self-defense is against the law.

CCW and self-defense go hand-in-hand. Certainly there are other forms of self-defense, but none are as effective, and none that can be used effectively by so many of differing abilities. If you can't carry a gun, it is useless for self-defense when you are not at home, etc. How exactly would you prepare for self-defense in a non-CCW state Hugh, if you had to go?

I think the point is clear: The idea of the feds forcing a State without CCW to recognize permits from other States, such that a State's own Citizens can't CCW but visitors can, is antithetical to our form of government.

I don't think there is anything antithetical to forcing individual states to respect the inherent rights of all US citizens, residents or otherwise. What is antithetical is allowing a group of voters in one state to be allowed to take away the rights of all in that state, plus any who visit it, because their anti-gun attitudes represent a simple majority.

This legislation would solve the problem for visitors, but not for residents, unfortunately. That is still better than the situation that exists now. As I suggested, perhaps passage of this law would create enough outcry at what would obviously be a grossly unfair situation to force some changing of the laws at the state level to alllow for CCW. If not, it might inspire a change in elected officals to further that end.

 

[pocketgun]

The more I think about it, this reminds me of HR 218 more than a little.

The problem I have with HR 218 is that it caters to a group (LEOs) for the purpose of giving them special rights, even when retired. It is then oh-so-easy for them (departments, police unions, etc.) to officially endorse any piece of anti-CCW/gun legislation, knowing full well that it won't effect them and their families. It is a very shrewd way of furthering the efforts of gun control for normal people.

I don't see the way this law could be abused in like manner - pro-CCW groups in other states have no way to vote on state level anti-gun/CCW measures to give themselves special rights in the anti-CCW states to begin with.

edited for clarification, then for the following:

That being said, you are right that under the constitution, we are under the agreement that each state shall grant free commerce and travel to the others. If this is not followed then the answer is not to pass another law on top of the law we already have (the constitution) and especially not invade a state with U.S. Marshalls and FBI or worse the military and make them do what the federal government wants. The federal goverment was a creation of the states not the other way around. It was a voluntary union of states that came together in agreement for the benefit of commerce, defense and trade not to be one big "nation" or "empire." If one state violates this agreement (the constitution) than it, in my mind, forfiets all protections and benifits of the constitution and is in effect ejected from the union. Think of it this way, if you joined a club and someone in the club started violating the rules that were laid down in the beginning, the solution is not to engage in violence against that person to make him follow them, but to remove him from the club rolls.

Thanks for the lowercase edit (Doug, or whoever did it), I actually read the post this time. Too much time went into it for it to just be ignored, but I just couldn't read it like it was.

I see the point you are making Doug, but it still doesn't solve the problem. Lets say that one of the southern states were to vote on re-instituting slavery, for example (I know, it is a bit inflammatory, but I want to make the point a strong one here). Would it be reasonable to just allow that state to do so? It certainly flies in the way the country has been run for a long, long time. Where should the line be drawn? Is the 2nd amendment worth enforcing for all US citizens? I think so.

I do not like a big centralized government. The warnings here would be wise to listen to - no objection. Nor do I care for a state or local government that steps all over my personal freedoms - and that is what is currently being allowed to happen. To sit back and say "no, it isn't perfect, so don't pass it" simply dooms us to the loss of these freedoms, probably for my lifetime. Change needs to occur - if I can't get dramatic change then I will happily take it the same way it was taken from me. One small step at a time.

 

[Hunter Rose]

>This legislation would solve the problem for visitors, but not for residents, unfortunately. That is still better than the situation that exists now. As I suggested, perhaps passage of this law would create enough outcry at what would obviously be a grossly unfair situation to force some changing of the laws at the state level to alllow for CCW. If not, it might inspire a change in elected officals to further that end.<

Actually, it would just as likely cause problems. "See: due to federal law, we now have to allow visitors with permits to carry, and crime hasn't changed all that much!" Your average visitor to a state isn't as likely to go places where a means of defense is needed, or where people carrying is likely to effect crime...

Yeah, you MIGHT get a few people going "I don't like the idea. But if we're being forced to allow visitors to our state to carry, then WE should be able too!", but I'm not sure they'd be that vocal...

 

[Hugh Damright]

I don't think there is anything antithetical to forcing individual states to respect the inherent rights of all US citizens, residents or otherwise. What is antithetical is allowing a group of voters in one state to be allowed to take away the rights of all in that state, plus any who visit it, because their anti-gun attitudes represent a simple majority.

CCW is not an inherent right. What *is* an inherent right is the inherent collective right of the people of each State to pass CCW laws as they see fit.

This legislation would solve the problem for visitors, but not for residents, unfortunately. That is still better than the situation that exists now.

No it absolutely would not be better. If we are going to be that disrespectful of our form of government, then why not not just let the Virginia State Legislature pass gun laws for every State?

As I suggested, perhaps passage of this law would create enough outcry at what would obviously be a grossly unfair situation to force some changing of the laws at the state level to alllow for CCW. If not, it might inspire a change in elected officals to further that end.

You have no idea the outcry this inane idea would cause. But neither the outcry, nor the "grossly unfair situtation", would regard CCW. There is a bigger picture here.

 

[Handy]

If carry is a right, affirm it on a Federal level and be done with it. If it isn't a right, then individual states have the right to prevent it in their territory, regardless of the origin of people passing through that territory.


It is a great relief to see I'm not the only one concerned about the bigger picture in this, Hugh.

 

[pocketgun]

Your average visitor to a state isn't as likely to go places where a means of defense is needed, or where people carrying is likely to effect crime...

OK, if you send me a map of the only places where crime is permitted, I guess I won't need my CCW anyway.

I personally carry everywhere I can (legally) because I don't know where I may need it. Sort of like saying you only need to insure your car in for high accident areas, don't you think?

BTW, some criminals deliberately target people they believe to be tourists.

CCW is not an inherent right.

I disagree, Hugh. I believe it is an inherent right. You never did answer my question:

How exactly would you prepare for self-defense in a non-CCW state Hugh, if you had to go?

Not trying to pester you with it, but it fits right into the point I am making.

 

[Handy]

If it's a right, why do you have to get a license for it?


It SHOULD be a right, but obviously isn't, yet. If you have a CCL, you also treat it as a priveledge. And this bill seaks to spread that priveledge to states that don't allow it. That creates two classes of people in those states.


We do have a right for protection from legalized class distinctions.

 

[Webleymkv]

My issue is the precedent that it sets. Suppose that this legislation does go through. Then suddenly, California (which does have provisions for CCL) says that this poses a danger to their citizens because citizens of other states have weapons holding more than ten rounds. If we have such a law to protect CCL holders from other states then we must have one to protect California residents while they visit other states. Therefore, no state should be able to allow its citizens to posess magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Presto, ressurection of the Assault Weapon Ban! Is this stupid? Yes, but then again so are at least half of the gun control laws currently on the books. I fear that this sort of thing is a double edged sword.

 

[tyme]

If we [California] have such a law to protect CCL holders from other states then we must have one to protect California residents while they visit other states. Therefore, no state should be able to allow its citizens to posess magazines that hold more than ten rounds.

I don't follow this at all. California doesn't control the federal legislature. If Congress passes a law allowing carry of anything short of DDs and machineguns, they're not going to pass a law the next year banning carry of hi-cap magazines.

 

[Handy]

He's trying to illustrate that a federal law allowing on state's laws to override another states is very dangerous. If the example isn't perfect, the sentiment is.

 

[pocketgun]

If it's a right, why do you have to get a license for it?

It SHOULD be a right, but obviously isn't, yet. If you have a CCL, you also treat it as a priveledge. And this bill seaks to spread that priveledge to states that don't allow it. That creates two classes of people in those states.

The answer is that it is a right that has been allowed to be erroded, or taken away completely in some cases. Do we need to debate that every person has a right to "life, liberty" etc., unless they do something to have that right revoked? Handy, would you care to answer the question I put to Hugh Damright?

My issue is the precedent that it sets.

I agree, it is far from perfect - I have never claimed otherwise. All I am saying that it is a step in restoring some of our lost 2nd Amendment rights, not a final solution. As I said before, I would be happy to see the law revoked and the Constitution taken seriously at some point, but until that day comes, I hope this goes through.

 

[Handy]

How would I prepare for my defense in a non-CCW state?

A funny question. It presupposes that I have no control of where I go. If one is so serious about self defense, why go anywhere it is illegal to defend oneself?


Realistically, you find out what kind of weapons are legal and stick to safer areas.

Plus, you can carry an unloaded gun in locked case almost anywhere. That only puts you 5 seconds away from a loaded gun if done right.




Now you tell me how that relates to supporting a bill that treats some people as second class citizens in their home state.

 

[pocketgun]

How would I prepare for my defense in a non-CCW state?

A funny question. It presupposes that I have no control of where I go. If one is so serious about self defense, why go anywhere it is illegal to defend oneself?

Business travel. Travel to visit/help/bury family or friends. I don't think skipping out on obligations is feasible for everyone. Free travel between the states was something the Founding Fathers envisioned. Giving up that travel due to fear of criminal activity and compromised ability to defend oneself seems like a high price to pay to me to protect unconstitutional laws.

Realistically, you find out what kind of weapons are legal and stick to safer areas.

Of course sticking to safer areas is a good idea, but it is not always possible. Cars break down, meetings sometimes need to happen in neighborhoods that are a bit unsavory. People tell you a place is safe, but only work there during the day - at night it gets sketchy, and you don't know it until after you check in to the motel.

Even if you avoid such places, sometimes the denizens don't stay put. Pepper spray, stun guns, even knives are poor weapons for self-defense against any firearm. Particularly if one is older or less able-bodied. Being in a gunfight with only a can of "legal" pepper spray isn't my idea of even having a fighting chance.

Now you tell me how that relates to supporting a bill that treats some people as second class citizens in their home state.

The bill does not treat the citizens as second class - the foolish laws of the non-CCW states do that by leaving citizens and visitors less/un able to defend themselves against criminals who use or threaten lethal force. This happens for residents whether the National Carry Reciprocity bill is passed or not. Support the bill because it will help out law-abiding US citizens in general, even if it won't help you. You are essentially just asking for everyone else to share in the injustice of your state's BS laws - will visitors being victimized somehow make you feel better? Consider it a step toward non-CCW states granting "permission" to do the things residents should already be able to do without permission, not a final endpoint.

 

[Handy]

It isn't a step in that direction. It is a diversion that takes drive and momentum away from the real issue.

Instead of supporting important legislation, you want to completely subvert state's ability to govern themselves, and grant priveledge (or rights) disproportionately among citizens.

Do you know the expression pyrrhic victory? You're willing to throw so much of what is important about being Americans for a convenience item for a few. As someone who served in the military, I don't understand your perspective. If you truly believe these are rights to fight for, stop suborning the very concept of rights in the pursuit of this damaging legislation.

 

[pocketgun]

It isn't a step in that direction. It is a diversion that takes drive and momentum away from the real issue.

I disagree - the real issue is that states like WI, NE, KS, etc. are allowed to ignore the 2nd Amendment. This bill rectifies that to some extent. I choose to live in a "free" state. I cannot always reasonably avoid the ones with tyrannical CCW laws.

Instead of supporting important legislation, you want to completely subvert state's ability to govern themselves, and grant priveledge (or rights) disproportionately among citizens.

What "important legislation" can I support in a state I am not a resident in? I cannot vote there, important or not, because I am not a resident.

This bill does nothing to subvert a state's ability to govern themselves; it does define how they can govern fellow US citizens who are non-residents, and thus have no say in their politics.

We have discussed the "right" vs "privilege" issue above. BTW, states do not "grant" rights - they respect them. At least that is what they are supposed to do.

Do you know the expression pyrrhic victory?

Yes, I know what the term refers to. I find its use in this context rather ironic, considering you are willing to throw away something quite tangible based on philosophical/idealistic notions of how things should be, but clearly are not. If it fails, you will gain nothing IMO.

You're willing to throw so much of what is important about being Americans for a convenience item for a few.

I don't consider my personal safety a "convenience item". Last I checked, the lives of "the few" were pretty darn important to them. An important part of being an American is "being alive" too.

As someone who served in the military, I don't understand your perspective.

Thank you for your service to America. Please explain why that somehow plays a role in this discussion.

If you truly believe these are rights to fight for, stop suborning the very concept of rights in the pursuit of this damaging legislation.

From my perspective, you are the one who is suborning my rights, not the other way around.

 

[tyme]

Handy, what you want is just as much of a Pyrrhic victory. You want to sacrifice a lot of people's RKBA when they travel just to prevent some vague potential threat to the future of states rights.

The truth is, states rights is already dead; in practice some "state rights" have suffered less than others, but the principle is already six feet under in a mahogany box.

This bill passing or not passing is not going to convince any congressperson to vote for or against future legislation that abuses states rights. Thinking it will is a big mistake and, I think, borders on delusion.

Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken (Antipitas please jump in if you know for sure), I believe the SCOTUS has ruled that when Congress identifies a power (such as the interstate commerce clause) as a basis for passing a piece of legislation, that identification is not binding; I seem to recall from somewhere that a law can survive a constitutional challenge on other grounds (like the 2nd, 9th, and 14th amendments) even if an identified rationale (interstate commerce clause) does not hold up.

 

[Al Norris]

tyme, the SCOTUS has been entirely inconsistent on Commerce Clause issues of late. I think that they think it's a smorgasbord!

Regardless, much of what Handy and Hugh have said is correct... Until you look at the 14th amendment. In order for such legislation to pass muster, I believe the Congress would have to declare the Second a personal right and use the 14th as the basis for incorporating their law. If they were to simply use the Commerce Clause as the basis, I can see the Court striking it down.

The only other real way that I see, would be if the Congress were to pass a law that simply gave reciprocation to States that already had permits. The travelor would then be bound to the lws of the State in which he passed through or in which he visited. A State that had no permits, would not have to participate. That would most likely pass Judicial Review.

 

[Handy]

Look, the problem I have with this is twofold.

One: It treats some US citizens differently. That should raise a huge flag for every citizen.

I understand the arguments made about "why should Wisconsin...", but laws have always been centered around property. The current state of affairs is at least impartial because any US citizen can get an Alabama carry permit and no US citizen can get a Wisconsin permit. Right or wrong, everyone is equal.

State laws don't go over borders - Wisconsin law doesn't prevent WI tax payers from getting a VA CCL - this is really unprecedented.


Two: You guys keep talking about how CCL is a right, then treating it as anything but. If you believe it is a right, demand a bill stating that. Reciprocity only enforces the illusion that carry is a priveledge to be licensed to those with the right influence or zip code. This bill does not promote general freedom, it divides us into have and have-nots.


My reference to military service is that it contains the elements I'm speaking of: Sometimes your society comes before your personal safety. Just as it is better to lose some soldiers rather than give in to terror, it is important to demand justice rather than expediance. If you feel not being able to carry in some states is national problem, because you should be able to do what you do anywhere in the nation, then it deserves a national solution. Anything else is an admission that you don't believe it IS a right.

Reciprocity is the easy way out. It is an injustice that you are ironically defending by quoting the Bill of Rights. Imagine how Martin Luther King Jr. would have looked if he only wanted equality for Blacks, but not any other group. Imagine the Women's suffrage movement if it was only for Yankee women.

This is a black eye for 2A rights, because you are putting your support in for the unequal protection of US citizens under the law.