Status of national reciprocity?

V

vito

New member
It made the news when a bill was introduced on the first day of the new Congress to establish national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, but I've seen nothing in the days since. I was hoping that this bill would quickly be passed by the House and be taken up immediately in the Senate, but obviously this is not the top priority, or even close to that, for the Republicans at this time.

Several times a year I travel from Illinois to NYC to visit my very old and ailing mother (she turns 102 this coming week!) and have to make the trip disarmed. I am covered from IL, through IN, OH and PA but as soon as I would cross into NJ and then NY I would be subject to felony arrest were I to have a handgun in my car, even unloaded and locked in the trunk. Not only will national reciprocity solve this dilemma but I can't wait to see the astonished look on the faces of my anti-gun relatives in NY when it becomes legal for me to carry in their midst!
 
Several times a year I travel from Illinois to NYC to visit my very old and ailing mother (she turns 102 this coming week!) and have to make the trip disarmed. I am covered from IL, through IN, OH and PA but as soon as I would cross into NJ and then NY I would be subject to felony arrest were I to have a handgun in my car, even unloaded and locked in the trunk. Not only will national reciprocity solve this dilemma but I can't wait to see the astonished look on the faces of my anti-gun relatives in NY when it becomes legal for me to carry in their midst!
Click to expand...
I placed emphasis on part of your statement. Don"t hold your breath on that being true. I do not see NJ or NYC allowing CCW
 
I thought that was the whole intent of national reciprocity, that if you had a license from ANY state it has to be honored by all of the other 49 states, just as it is with a driver's license. One of the incidents often referred to by supporters of the law was the young woman from PA who had a PA concealed carry license who crossed the nearby state border with NJ and when she revealed that she had a concealed firearm, was arrested and charged with a felony. If NY, NJ or any state retains the right to not accept another state's license as giving legal cover to the gun carrier then it is of no value at all.
 
I think the chances of national reciprocity for concealed carry are about as close to 0 as you can get if left up to the states. On the Federal level, I think the chances for it are a little better but not by much. Personally, I would rather have the system the way it is now than have the Federal Government involved.
 
The way it is now means you can not only not carry, you cannot safely travel through some restrictive states with the very firearm you can legally carry on both sides of the restrictive states. It means that your Constitutional rights only exist as a patchwork of rights as you cross the various state jurisdictions. I am not a fan of more Federal laws and regulations, but when such have the effect of strengthening our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then I am in support of such laws. It is the end result of being free to legally carry a firearm, anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States, that I hope for, and if a Federal law granting national reciprocity is the only way to get it, then I'm for it. Maybe someday a truly freedom-loving Supreme Court will declare such a law unnecessary, but until then its the best we can hope for.
 
ATN082268 said:
I think the chances of national reciprocity for concealed carry are about as close to 0 as you can get if left up to the states. On the Federal level, I think the chances for it are a little better but not by much. Personally, I would rather have the system the way it is now than have the Federal Government involved.
Click to expand...
Then you must live in a free state, surrounded by free states. Not all parts of the country are so fortunate.

As a young sprout, my family spent every summer with my grandparents in Maine. One of my favorite places is Acadia National Park. My younger sister lives in New Hampshire. I can't drive from PA or anywhere south or west of PA to any New England state without passing through at least New York state, and for better routes I would also have to pass through New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. None of those states offer any reciprocity whatsoever, and their willingness to even recognize the FOPA is up for debate.

We need national reciprocity. If that means we need the feds to impose it from above, so be it. The structure of the propose House bill follows the outline of the LEOSA; it doesn't impose any onerous new requirements. The only problem I see with it is that it doesn't remove the GFSZA requirement that to enter a school zone you must have a license or permit from the state in which the school zone is located. That has to change or national reciprocity becomes a mine field.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
We need national reciprocity. If that means we need the feds to impose it from above, so be it. The structure of the propose House bill follows the outline of the LEOSA; it doesn't impose any onerous new requirements.
Click to expand...

Hey, if a national reciprocity bill is passed where everything is the same except that I can now conceal carry in other states, that's great. I just don't see that happening. Do you really think states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey are just going to roll over and play dead? If national reciprocity is passed, I'd take the odds to Vegas that conceal carry requirements will generally be more stringent than they are now except possibly if you live in those states with already stringent conceal carry laws. So, you might make it a little easier on 10 or so states but harder on the other 40. I'll pass.
 
Hey, if a national reciprocity bill is passed where everything is the same except that I can now conceal carry in other states, that's great. I just don't see that happening. Do you really think states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey are just going to roll over and play dead? If national reciprocity is passed, I'd take the odds to Vegas that conceal carry requirements will generally be more stringent than they are now except possibly if you live in those states with already stringent conceal carry laws. So, you might make it a little easier on 10 or so states but harder on the other 40. I'll pass.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY what will happen, the population and political clout of those will make the rules for everyone else. Those who live in states with no CCW license requirements will now have to obtain one and go through some maze of Federal inquisitions to have reciprocity.
 
ATN082268 said:
Hey, if a national reciprocity bill is passed where everything is the same except that I can now conceal carry in other states, that's great. I just don't see that happening. Do you really think states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey are just going to roll over and play dead? If national reciprocity is passed, I'd take the odds to Vegas that conceal carry requirements will generally be more stringent than they are now except possibly if you live in those states with already stringent conceal carry laws. So, you might make it a little easier on 10 or so states but harder on the other 40. I'll pass.
ATN082268 is offline Report Post
Click to expand...
Have you taken the time to read the House bill? There is nothing in there about making standards for a CCW permit more stringent. I can't understand your concern. The states that already make it difficult (or effectively impossible) to get a carry permit basically can't make their requirements any more stringent. What would be the incentive for the "easy" states to tighten up their requirements?

If anything, I see it probably going the other way. If people from states like Montana, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, etc. are suddenly allowed to carry in states like New York, New Jersey and California, I would expect a LOT more pressure on the legislatures of those states to remove the barriers that make their own residents unable to carry when visitors are allowed to carry.
 
Another Reciprocity Approach

I think the efforts to Federally mandate reciprocity are laudable, but misguided and probably destined to fail under a Democratic filibuster.

A better approach would be to deny Federal law enforcement funds to any state or subordinate governmental entity that issues concealed carry permits which does not recognize concealed carry permits from all jurisdictions. Because this is a tax/revenue issue, it can be passed with a 51% majority in both houses of Congress! :eek::D:D:D

Such legislation would apply to New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, and other "home rule" cities. The loss of millions if not billions of $ would ensure quick, if grudging, compliance. :cool:
 
If anything, I see it probably going the other way. If people from states like Montana, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, etc. are suddenly allowed to carry in states like New York, New Jersey and California, I would expect a LOT more pressure on the legislatures of those states to remove the barriers that make their own residents unable to carry when visitors are allowed to carry.
Click to expand...

...or more likely those States would go the other way and just make any and all carry Illegal.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Have you taken the time to read the House bill? There is nothing in there about making standards for a CCW permit more stringent. I can't understand your concern. The states that already make it difficult (or effectively impossible) to get a carry permit basically can't make their requirements any more stringent. What would be the incentive for the "easy" states to tighten up their requirements?
Click to expand...

What matters is the bill that passes, not the one which is introduced. I suspect the states with stringent conceal carry laws will insist there be some minimum standard for conceal carry in order for national reciprocity to pass. That minimum standard will likely be higher than the current standard of other states.
 
Steve4102 said:
...or more likely those States would go the other way and just make any and all carry Illegal.
Click to expand...
They can't, when the law begins with, "The laws of any state or political subdivision thereof notwithstanding ..."
 
ATN082268 said:
What matters is the bill that passes, not the one which is introduced. I suspect the states with stringent conceal carry laws will insist there be some minimum standard for conceal carry in order for national reciprocity to pass. That minimum standard will likely be higher than the current standard of other states.
Click to expand...
I agree. But the Republicans control both houses of Congress. It's up to us to keep the pressure on them to not allow any such "poison pill" amendments to be stuck into the bill. We know that the anti-gun side will try to kill it, and if/when they can't do that they'll try to weaken or poison it. Our JOB is to ride herd on it to prevent that from happening.
 
They can't, when the law begins with, "The laws of any state or political subdivision thereof notwithstanding ..."
Click to expand...

HUH?

It also states that any and all State laws apply, and the out-of-state carrier must abide by any and all State laws.

Nowhere does it say that States cannot change existing laws.

If the State of CA does not want Reciprocity, it would be very simple to just eliminate Carry altogether within the State and there would be NO "reciprocity" as it is statutorily illegal.
 
Yeah, I read it, quote the section that says that individual States cannot alter, amend, change State laws to eliminate carry altogether?
 
"Yeah, I read it, quote the section that says that individual States cannot alter, amend, change State laws to eliminate carry altogether?"

Not even the 9th Circuit would deem that Constitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top