Status of national reciprocity?

Yes, Section (a)(1) would allow a state to totally ban all carry within the state, including for its own residents. But the RKBA is in the Constitution, and I'm pretty sure that even those who argue that Constitutional rights can be regulated agree that they cannot be banned.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree.

I just read this today A Republican lawmaker this week filed a bill to repeal federal ‘Gun-Free School Zones Act’

http://www.guns.com/2017/01/06/bill-filed-to-repeal-federal-gun-free-school-zones-act/

link to the bill itself: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/34/text?q={"search":["H.R.+34"]}&r=1


we need national reciprocity and it would not be complete without a total repealment of the GFSZ act of 1990.
 
Personally, I would rather have the system the way it is now than have the Federal Government involved.
Click to expand...
What the .gov gives they can also take away, eh?

OTOH - if you have a law on the books, does that open that law up to Executive actions?
I honestly don't know - which is why I ask.
 
if you have a law on the books, does that open that law up to Executive actions?
I honestly don't know - which is why I ask.
Click to expand...
The answer is yes. Executive actions are taken on laws that already exist.
 
The President can issue an executive order to implement a law. If the law just says "Henceforth anyone with a permit can carry in all states" ... what is there for the President to order? He can't change what the law says, he can only say "Do it."
 
what is there for the President to order?
Click to expand...
The question could be, what isn't there anything to stand in the way of some future president issuing an EO that says something like - only "smart guns" may be carried concealed.
 
Status of national reciprocity?
Click to expand...

Dead in the water.

I don't think most understand the logistics of it. States will not voluntarily comply with reciprocity unless mandated by the Federal government. New York, California, and a few other states would demand that all other states meet their minimum requirements, and their requirement would likely be insane. I can only imagine the training requirement, mental health evaluation, background check, and other hoops that they would require before issuing a CCH permit. Other, pro 2A, states would balk at these requirements.

A federal government mandate will not solve this problem. There are couple of options for federal involvement. Grant funding could be tied to states voluntarily accepting reciprocity, much like the federal government enacted a per se alcohol impairment limit of .08 (along with many other traffic mandates, such as 55mph speed limits). I don't see this being incentive enough for any anti-gun state. The next option would be federal legislation mandating national concealed carry. This would probably establish a permitting system, along with setting the requirements to obtain a permit. I don't think anyone here, should they think on that long enough, would want the federal government having that much control over your right to CCH. Remember, politics are cyclic and just because it goes our way this year doesn't mean that it will 4 years from now.

Then you must live in a free state, surrounded by free states. Not all parts of the country are so fortunate.
Click to expand...

I understand that sentiment, and I'm sorry for the pro-2A gun owner's plight who lives in these restrictive states. At the end of the day, there are probably MANY MANY MANY more gun enthusiasts living in free states that are fairly lenient with carry requirements than gun enthusiasts in restrictive states. It's a tragedy to let those who would like to CC legally languish in a restrictive state, or that I can't travel to New York and legally CC. At the end of the day, it also wouldn't necessarily be fair to pass a national CCH permitting system and require citizens in other less restrictive states to be required to pay for more training requirements, health evaluations, or whatever other silliness that would likely be attached to a national CCH permit.
 
Last edited:
5whiskey said:
At the end of the day, it also wouldn't necessarily be fair to pass a national CCH permitting system and require citizens in other less restrictive states to be required to pay for more training requirements, health evaluations, or whatever other silliness that would likely be attached to a national CCH permit.
Click to expand...
I agree.

So please tell us exactly what part of the proposed legislation calls for more training requirements, health evaluations, or "any other silliness would likely be attached to a national CCH permit"?

In fact, where does the proposed legislation even hint at a "national concealed CCH permit"? It's not about a national permit, it's about universal reciprocity. In fact, just as I predicted weeks ago, the language is modeled closely on the LEOSA that was enacted into federal law several years ago.
 
if we are not going to pass a national CCW permit then how are we going to get the prohibition states to reciprocate?

(forgive me in advance if I missed that already...)
 
if we are not going to pass a national CCW permit then how are we going to get the prohibition states to reciprocate?
Click to expand...

What "prohibition states?" IIRC, state in the union has some provision for concealed carry, although several "may issue" states make it virtually impossible to obtain, unless you're rich, famous, or a major campaign contributor.
 
Gary L. Griffiths said:
What "prohibition states?" IIRC, state in the union has some provision for concealed carry, although several "may issue" states make it virtually impossible to obtain, unless you're rich, famous, or a major campaign contributor.
Click to expand...
you answered your own question


every state has some provision for carry only because they have to (notice I left out concealed). That provision doesn't mean they are not prohibitive by nature.... Try getting a permit in Cali, NY, DC..., now try getting one if your not a resident and need to travel there. Cant get a permit, try open carry (sarcasm, dont try that...). Its unconstitutional, its prohibition.
 
well thats interesting, if the bill passed as is it would really be sticking it to prohibition states over infringing CCW requirements to get a permit.
 
Expect some SCOTUS cases to clarify and extend national carry rights to all 50 states if a basic reciprocity law is enacted. There's no magic wand, the anti-gun states will fight it before and after it becomes law.

The advantage to the law is it puts those states on the defensive.
 
I'd rather not having the federal government dabbling in state business.
Click to expand...

The Federal government won’t be ‘dabbling’ in state business.

The proposed measure merely amends existing Federal law; no changes would be made to any state’s concealed carry law, where residents of each state would still be subject to those laws.

Otherwise, the measure has zero chance of passing.
 
The Federal government won’t be ‘dabbling’ in state business.

The proposed measure merely amends existing Federal law; no changes would be made to any state’s concealed carry law, where residents of each state would still be subject to those laws.

Otherwise, the measure has zero chance of passing.
Click to expand...

How deep do these "laws" that must be followed go?

If MN Law for example, requires 8 hours of firearms training to be allowed to carry, would the out-of-state resident also have to have 8 hours of approved Training to carry in MN even if his/her State did not require it?

If MN law requires it's citizens pass a Background Check to be allowed to carry, would out-of-State residents also be required to pass a background Check before being allowed to carry in MN?

Which State laws will we be required and which ones will we not be required to follow?
 
The federal government imposed the requirement on states that they honor gay marriages performed in other states. No, I'm not going there. But, it's a somewhat parallel situation. And it's ironic that, generally speaking, the states that were first to approve gay marriage are the last to allow concealed carry.
 
Last edited:
What about a person living in a constitutional carry state, traveling in a permit only... Better yet "may issue" state like Cali?
 
kilimanjaro said:
Expect some SCOTUS cases to clarify and extend national carry rights to all 50 states if a basic reciprocity law is enacted. There's no magic wand, the anti-gun states will fight it before and after it becomes law.

The advantage to the law is it puts those states on the defensive.
Click to expand...
I agree we can expect push-back from the die-hard anti-gun states. That's why our job is to keep the pressure on the Republicans to push back against the push-back, and not allow any poison pill amendments to the bill.
 
Steve4102 said:
How deep do these "laws" that must be followed go?

If MN Law for example, requires 8 hours of firearms training to be allowed to carry, would the out-of-state resident also have to have 8 hours of approved Training to carry in MN even if his/her State did not require it?
Click to expand...
No. Read the bill.

If MN law requires it's citizens pass a Background Check to be allowed to carry, would out-of-State residents also be required to pass a background Check before being allowed to carry in MN?
Click to expand...
No, read the bill.

Which State laws will we be required and which ones will we not be required to follow?
Click to expand...
The bill allows the states to establish specific classes of places where nobody is allowed to carry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top