Status of national reciprocity?

[FITASC]

and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant
15
to the law of a State and which permits the person to
16
carry a concealed firearm

And so the folks who live in states for which no permit is required need to do what? Have their state incur costs so they can get a "valid ID to carry"?

prohibit or restrict the possession of fire-
9
arms on any State or local government property, in-
10
stallation, building, base, or park

Since the local governments and state governments "own" the streets and highways, does this mean they could then outlaw carrying on "their property"?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

And so the folks who live in states for which no permit is required need to do what? Have their state incur costs so they can get a "valid ID to carry"?

a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, ...

Since the local governments and state governments "own" the streets and highways, does this mean they could then outlaw carrying on "their property"?

‘‘(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

Yes, the states (not local governments) could outlaw carry on public streets. Under the language of the law, this would have to be done by state law, not local ordinance. How likely is that to happen? With one or two exceptions, I think very unlikely, because the same law would apply to their own residents, as well. Certainly, this probably isn't a concern for legislators in New Jersey, California, or Hawaii, but ordinary people can't carry there anyway so I see no downside to the remote possibility of this being their response to a national reciprocity law. And, of course, it's questionable that such a prohibition would stand up to a constitutional challenge if Trump comes through for us on his appointment(s) to the SCOTUS.

 

[FITASC]

and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant
15
to the law of a State and which permits the person to
16
carry a concealed firearm

Key word. The way I am reading this the person needs to have a valid license or permit which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm. Some state do not issue those permits, hence my previous question.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You stopped reading too soon. See lines 17 and 18, following the key word "or." I bolded it in the section I quoted, above.

Here's an interesting example of unintended consequences. I live in a state that issues permits, but I live in a town that doesn't like guns. My town has a local ordinance prohibiting the carry of firearms on "Town-owned property." The Town Counsel has advised the Police Department that this includes all public, Town roads and streets (but not State highways that run through the town).

This means that, since I have a permit and I live on a local street, I'm legal to carry in my own yard, BUT -- if I step across the property line to get my mail from the mailbox, I'm in violation. If this new law were to pass, I could have a friend visiting from a permit state such as Pennsylvania or Florida, or even from a non-permit state such as Vermont, and my guest could legally stroll out to my mailbox while carrying, while I would have to stop at the property line (or disarm before crossing the property line).

Unfortunately, my state doesn't have preemption, so the local ordinance can't be challenged on that basis. I've already spent over $15,000 out of my pocket trying to get it overturned, and so far all we've gotten from the Town is "We don't iike guns."

My point here is that there are always two sides to an argument. There are circumstances under which this proposed law could make things possible for residents of roughly 47 or 48 states (maybe even all 49) that aren't possible for residents in their own home states. At some point, one would have to hope that either the state or local governments, or a court, would wake up and realize that it makes no sense at all for visitors from 47, 48, or 49 states to be allowed to do __X__ while the state's own citizens can't do __X__. I would hope that might result in the repeal of some state and local anti-gun laws, rather than passing more of same.

 

[ShootistPRS]

The federal government could do the same thing that was done with same gender marriage. All they did was proclaim it a right and as such all states had to allow it. Do the same thing with the right to carry, concealed or open, in every state. It IS a RIGHT and cannot be LAWFULLY restricted or abridged by any government. The Feds don't need to issue permits or require training or anything other than stating it is a right.

It simply reinforces the second amendment as written.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The "federal government" didn't declare any right to same-gender marriage. The courts did. Looking at all the 2A cases currently wending their way through the courts, as well as the many that have failed, and then the very narrow margins on both Heller and McDonald, I wouldn't expect anything as broad and simple as what you hope for to happen any time soon. Not even if Trump gets to appoint multiple Supreme Court justices, and makes good picks each time.

 

[5whiskey]

Aguila I didn't read the link to the proposed law before I posted earlier. I do stand corrected...

At any rate, I would like to see legislators Proceed with caution on these things. At least until we see who SCOTUS picks are. Remember there were a number of pro 2A groups who didn't cast their lot with DC v Heller, and some who even opposed filing it out of fear of the damage done to pro 2A rights had it went a different way. DC v Heller turned out great, but it was a slim victory and we would be hating life had just one justice had voted differently. Lots of folks believed the timing wasn't right form that case until it was decided. They were ultimately wrong, but their prudence isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[ctdonath]

"I'd rather not having the federal government dabbling in state business."

Likewise, but sometimes we need a superior jurisdiction to address a systemic/chronic problem in lower jurisdictions. Between "full faith & credit" and "interstate commerce" clauses, the feds have the enumerated power to direct states to respect each others' licensing (driving, marriage, CCW, etc) when said licensing is equivalent in all states but states are reluctant to respect each others' licenses. To wit: when every state has a way of documenting "citizen X is licensed by this state to do Y", other states can be compelled by the feds to respect that license as though issued locally. If VT says "this (and every) resident of our state is responsible enough for CCW", then CA needs to respect that legislated/adjudicated conclusion for that visitor.

The dabbling should be as narrow as possible, as in "respect each others' CCW licenses, including simple proof of residence if appropriate (per Constitutional Carry states)", not establishing a slate of rules for training, testing, certification, limited allowed weapons, etc above & beyond each state's own rules.

 

[motorhead0922]

A word of caution: If this bill is passed and signed into law, what then? Here's a possible scenario:

1. Several states file suit against it.
2. Federal judge blocks it
3. Suit goes to Supreme Court
4. SC ties 4-4 (or worse, strikes down the law 5-3)
5. Law does not go into effect, perhaps permanently.

Sounds plausible. What do y'all think?

The first order of business is get another conservative justice.

 

[rickyrick]

I've said it before, but the only real problem is the creating of criminals that aren't criminals in another state, for a constitutional right.

If states don't recognize others permits, fine; just let us complete our business and leave the state.

 

[carguychris]

A word of caution: If this bill is passed and signed into law, what then? Here's a possible scenario:

1. Several states file suit against it.
2. Federal judge blocks it
3. Suit goes to Supreme Court
4. SC ties 4-4 (or worse, strikes down the law 5-3)
5. Law does not go into effect, perhaps permanently.

To build upon what I said in the previous Trump thread, another similar and perhaps more nefarious scenario is the following:

1. Several states enact punitive and overreaching handgun registration requirements in a blatant effort to keep out-of-state LTC holders from exercising their rights under the new law
2. Several LTC holders file suit against state(s)
3. Federal judge blocks registration requirements
4. Suit goes to Supreme Court
5. SC ties 4-4 (or worse, registration laws allowed to stand 5-3)
6. Law only kinda goes into effect, with LTC holders having to jump through state-by-state registration hoops, and residents of those states suffering under punitive registration requirements, perhaps permanently

In either scenario, we get bad court precedent.

The first order of business is get another conservative justice.

^^^ This.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Several states enact punitive and overreaching handgun registration requirements in a blatant effort to keep out-of-state LTC holders from exercising their rights under the new law

But more restrictive permit laws in, say, California, would not prevent people from states like Arizona, Texas and the like from coming into California and carrying legally pursuant to the proposed law. ALL it would do is prevent more Californians from getting permits.

I don't see what point you're trying to make.

 

[Al Norris]

Between "full faith & credit" and "interstate commerce" clauses, the feds have the enumerated power to direct states to respect each others' licensing (driving, marriage, CCW, etc) when said licensing is equivalent in all states but states are reluctant to respect each others' licenses.

Medical Practitioners; Attorneys; Dentists; Plumbers; Electricians; Barbers (just to name a few) are almost universally licensed to practice in the State they reside. That state license (or permit, call it what you will) is only valid in that State. It is not valid in another State, unless the states have a reciprocity agreement.

That is exactly how our various state drivers licenses came to be accepted/recognized by all the other states. Reciprocity agreements were executed and signed by all the states to recognize all the other states. The Feds were never involved in these agreements. It was and is, solely a State action.

Nota Bene: The Feds became involved (REAL ID) in this, only because the drivers license became the de facto means of identification across state lines, thereby becoming a commerce clause issue.

This exactly how CCW/LTC is handled today. They are state actions of reciprocity.

Marriage is a horse of a different color. The issued "license" is a state action but does not confer marriage upon a couple. That is a judicial act/decree and the reason it requires a court to dissolve the marriage (divorce). The various states have carved out (in specific legislative acts) exceptions as to who may perform the marriage, but the marriage is of and in itself a judicial act. That (judicial acts) is what the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution (Art IV, section 1) protects.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Marriage is a horse of a different color. The issued "license" is a state action but does not confer marriage upon a couple. That is a judicial act/decree and the reason it requires a court to dissolve the marriage (divorce). The various states have carved out (in specific legislative acts) exceptions as to who may perform the marriage, but the marriage is of and in itself a judicial act. That (judicial acts) is what the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution (Art IV, section 1) protects.

I don't think that's universally accepted as the limitation of the full faith and credit clause. The language itself is:

Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all Others

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.

Note that the clause actually requires the individual states to recognize and honor three classes of things from other states: "Public acts," "records,", and (thirdly and separately) "judicial proceedings." The term "public acts" generally refers to acts of the legislature, not to decisions of the courts.

Consequently, if a state enacts (as a "public act" of its legislature) a law that says anyone over the age of 21 who is not a convicted felon can own and carry a gun, that's clearly a public act. The issuance of a carry permit pursuant to such law is an administrative procedure that simply carries out the mandate of the public act. That seems to be where the debate on reciprocal recognition of carry permits lies: is the permit a "public act," or is it something less (an administrative procedure)?

The following comes from The Free Dictionary and thus is hardly a legally definitive analysis, but it supports the concept that Article IV Section 1 applies to more than just court decisions:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Full+Faith+and+Credit+Clause

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

 

[carguychris]

Several states enact punitive and overreaching handgun registration requirements in a blatant effort to keep out-of-state LTC holders from exercising their rights under the new law

But more restrictive permit laws in, say, California, would not prevent people from states like Arizona, Texas and the like from coming into California and carrying legally pursuant to the proposed law. ALL it would do is prevent more Californians from getting permits.

I don't see what point you're trying to make.

My point is that those states won't try to restrict the carry permit, as the federal law would preempt that. Instead, they may require registration of carry gun(s), under the guise of safety, theft prevention, and ensuring that the local AWB is complied with.

I foresee that this process would not be so difficult as to invite court challenges; it would be just difficult enough to discourage casual LTC holders from traveling to the state on a whim. ("Please mail notarized forms in triplicate to state police headquarters at the address below. Initial application must be accompanied by a clear 3"x5" color photo of each side of firearm(s), a copy of valid government-issued photo ID, and a check or money order for the $15 processing fee. No semi-automatic firearm(s) with the capability to accept a magazine with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds, a magazine forward of the trigger guard, a threaded barrel, and/or a flash hider may be registered. Please allow 45-60 days for processing...")

 

[vicGT]

My point is that those states won't try to restrict the carry permit, as the federal law would preempt that. Instead, they may require registration of carry gun(s), under the guise of safety, theft prevention, and ensuring that the local AWB is complied with.

I foresee that this process would not be so difficult as to invite court challenges; it would be just difficult enough to discourage casual LTC holders from traveling to the state on a whim. ("Please mail notarized forms in triplicate to state police headquarters at the address below. Initial application must be accompanied by a clear 3"x5" color photo of each side of firearm(s), a copy of valid government-issued photo ID, and a check or money order for the $15 processing fee. No semi-automatic firearm(s) with the capability to accept a magazine with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds, a magazine forward of the trigger guard, a threaded barrel, and/or a flash hider may be registered. Please allow 45-60 days for processing...")

Hey carguychris, I'm trying to understand HR 38 and your statement. In the bill, I see this language:

(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section

Assuming it becomes law as is, how could I be arrested for violating a law requiring the registration of carry guns when it says I can't be arrested for any state law relating to the carrying of firearms?

Is it the "...not provided for by this section" part? Because that part I completely don't understand. Sorry to bug you I'm just trying to get my head around all this!

 

[carguychris]

In the bill, I see this language:

(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section

Assuming it becomes law as is, how could I be arrested for violating a law requiring the registration of carry guns when it says I can't be arrested for any state law relating to the carrying of firearms?

Is it the "...not provided for by this section" part?

Yes, it's the "not provided for by this section " part. From section (b), my emphasis in boldface:

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

Subsection (2) opens to the door to fairly broad prohibitions.

From the hypothetical "Concealed Handgun Safety and Theft Prevention Act of 2017":

(a) Any handgun possessed or carried within any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park shall be registered pursuant to this Section.

(b) For the purposes of subsection (a), the term "installation" shall include:
(1) any rail, air, or bus transportation facility owned or operated by a subdivision of State or local government and open for public use;
(2) any school, college, or university owned or operated by a subdivision of State or local government;
(3) any facility owned or operated by a subdivision of State or local government where public sporting events are held, whether or not such events are actually taking place at the time; and
(4) any public highway, city street, alley, or pedestrian sidewalk right-of-way dedicated for public use.

 

[vicGT]

Thanks for the explanation, carguychris.

 

[FITASC]

any public highway, city street, alley, or pedestrian sidewalk right-of-way dedicated for public use.

That would eliminate concealed carry just about everywhere you'd want to carry one.

 

[carguychris]

Thanks for the explanation, carguychris.

You're welcome.

[The public right-of-way provision] would eliminate concealed carry just about everywhere you'd want to carry one.

As would the rail, air, or bus transportation facility provision, since many bus stations, most passenger rail stations, and AFAIK all U.S. airports with scheduled commercial carrier service are owned or operated by a subdivision of State or local government. Taken together, these provisions would make it largely impractical to lawfully transport an unregistered handgun into the state unless one found a way to walk or bicycle across the border within private property.

IOW section (b)(2) in the proposed reciprocity bill provides states with a loophole large enough to drive a train or fly a 747 through.