Once more into the breach - universal reciprocity

Does anyone not remember S.Amdt.719 to S.649 the post Sandy Hook gun control initiative in the Democrat controlled Senate was voted 57-43?

There are now 54 Republicans. Theoretically, four changed Nay (D) votes gets it passed. 11 gets it passed by a veto proof majority. (Because one (R) - Mark Kirk - from IL voted no) How many (D)'s - of the 13- in the Yea group are still there? Landrieu and Begich are gone for example. That leaves 10
 
Last edited:
Do you REALLY want to have your CCW regulations set by the likes of CA, MD, NY, MA, and NJ?

I sure don't and that is EXACTLY what well happen. This belongs at the state level, not the federal level.
 
What part of the bill enables CA, MD, NY, MA, and NJ to set the CCW regulations?
Click to expand...
Any part representatives of those states can get their hands on. They'll do their best to sink it by adding unworkable or loathsome provisions.
 
Tom Servo said:
Any part representatives of those states can get their hands on. They'll do their best to sink it by adding unworkable or loathsome provisions.
Click to expand...
If they do that it won't pass anyway because it will be worthless.

My issue is people complaining about the bill as it is written now, and saying this somehow opens the door for federal restrictions on CC. I'm not seeing that, and I also don't see how a reciprocity bill is a prerequisite to the Feds regulating CC.
 
Any part representatives of those states can get their hands on. They'll do their best to sink it by adding unworkable or loathsome provisions
Click to expand...
So the people who can't get enough votes to vote it down will get enough votes to amend it into something atrocious?

Do you REALLY want to have your CCW regulations set by the likes of CA, MD, NY, MA, and NJ?

I sure don't and that is EXACTLY what well happen. This belongs at the state level, not the federal level.
Click to expand...
Other than having to obey that State's law while in that State, what you're worried about isn't there yet, and is highly unlikely to be.
 
They? They who? The Republicans in control of the House and Senate?

By all means, which Senate/House bill was it that started this "more and more" trend "they" have been up to.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather keep my credibility, NOT be the little boy who cried wolf about "them" and their "more and more" agendas when the ACTUAL "they" haven't been in session long enough to have done much of anything, let alone "more and more" of anything.

We don't gain much of anything but a reputation for being reactionary anti-government whackos when we blame the government for something they wouldn't do and almost certainly didn't do.

Complaining about what isn't there, and would be rather difficult to put there before there's even a hint of anyone trying to really makes us sound like we're using a power drill to find the listening devices in our cheese.
 
They are the same ones that have initiated all the changes after VA. Teah and the Giffords shooting or Newton....

You saw all the new restrictive Fed laws that were a result of those.
 
Retroprocity is constitutinal article 1V section 1

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Maybe I'm too simple minded but that looks smells and tastes like retroprocity is all ready on the books its this clause that allows us to drive across the country without having to get new license's in each state we go threw why would this be any different
 
Last edited:
Buzzard Bait said:
Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Maybe I'm too simple minded but that looks smells and tastes like retroprocity is all ready on the books...
Click to expand...
What's missing from your post is an analysis of 226+ years of case law regarding what constitutes "Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings." The short version is that the Full Faith & Credit Clause clearly dictates that a state can't unilaterally disregard a civil or criminal judgment issued by a court in another state, but its effect on administrative licenses is less clear.

Keep in mind that it's commonplace for states to license professionals such as architects, barbers, beauticians, contractors, doctors, engineers, nurses, and surveyors, but those licenses generally aren't valid across state lines either.
 
Carguychris said:
Keep in mind that it's commonplace for states to license professionals such as architects, barbers, beauticians, contractors, doctors, engineers, nurses, and surveyors, but those licenses generally aren't valid across state lines either.
Click to expand...
True. As a holder of one of those types of licenses, I am acutely aware that I have to obtain another license from any state other than my home state if I wish to practice there, even if it's only for a week or even a single day.

BUT ... there is no "fundamental" (the word of the Supreme Court, not mine), constitutionally guaranteed right to practice as a professional such as an architect, barber, beautician, contractor, doctor, engineer, nurse, or surveyor. What carry licensing is really saying is that states (with a few exceptions) only respect the constitutional right to carry a firearm for self defense for people from their own state. On top of appearing to be a violation of the full faith and credit clause, how about the equal protection clause? The these states work, their own citizens are "more equal" than those from any other state.
 
They are the same ones that have initiated all the changes after VA. Teah and the Giffords shooting or Newton....

You saw all the new restrictive Fed laws that were a result of those
Click to expand...

No, I must have missed them. Which restrictive gun laws passed after Newtown?
 
On another note:
BUT ... there is no "fundamental" (the word of the Supreme Court, not mine), constitutionally guaranteed right to practice as a professional
Click to expand...

Except a carry permit isn't for the professionals. The professionals have LEOSA.

The Professionals have the State Bar. The amateurs have FARETTA v. CALIFORNIA, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)


Of course, there's no Constitutional right to design houses, so the analogy breaks down outside of practicing law, and not all professional gun carriers are covered by LEOSA. All analogies are imperfect.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
BUT ... there is no "fundamental" (the word of the Supreme Court, not mine), constitutionally guaranteed right to practice as a professional... What carry licensing is really saying is that states (with a few exceptions) only respect the constitutional right to carry a firearm for self defense for people from their own state. On top of appearing to be a violation of the full faith and credit clause, how about the equal protection clause? The these states work, their own citizens are "more equal" than those from any other state.
Click to expand...
FWIW I actually agree with you in concept, but keep in mind that many of the states that don't respect out-of-state CHLs also have "may-issue" permit systems that don't respect the rights of their own citizens. IMHO it's wrong, and some federal appeals courts agree with me, but the issue isn't settled.

Basically, I think this boils down to the fact that the SCOTUS has yet to rule that citizens have an individual right to carry and not just to possess arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top