Trump - 2nd Amendment

[rwilson452]

How is this different from universal recognition of other states' licenses or permits?

Or are you asking for universal permitless (a.k.a. "constitutional") carry? I agree that's the way it should be and that's what the Second Amendment actually says, but I don't expect that we'll see that in my lifetime. I would gladly settle for universal recognition/reciprocity, with no strings attached.

If you just say they need to recognize A permit. They can nail you on stuff you can carry in your home state but are not allowed in another state. I'm in PA. look at limitations on the things I listed in NY and NJ. As in NJ no HP bullets. NY has mag size limits and further limits the number of rounds that can be in the mag. PA has none of that.

 

[44 AMP]

If you just say they need to recognize A permit. They can nail you on stuff you can carry in your home state but are not allowed in another state.

Yep, so the smart thing is not to carry what they don't allow in their state.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a bit...

Neither you, nor I get to carry whatever we feel like in someone else's home. How many of their laws do we get to flout, because we disagree with their regulations??

The same laws that require each state to give full faith and credit to the permits and licenses of other states, have sections that specifically refer to arms, and through them, while the state must recognize your right to carry via home state permit, you are only allowed to carry in their state, in compliance with their state laws.

In other words, if they recognize our right to carry as a non resident, you and I must recognize their right to regulate what, where, and when we can carry in their state while we are there.

No, its not what the Founders wanted, based on what they wrote, but it is the system we have to live under, until/unless we get the laws changed.

As an extreme example, lets say your state requires a permit for concealed carry, but has no other restrictions. And your state has no laws prohibiting ownership of full auto firearms. You could, legally carry a machine pistol as a concealed weapon.

Now lets say my state recognizes your permit, but has laws prohibiting full auto weapons. You would be allowed to carry a regular pistol (legal in my state) but you would NOT be allowed to carry a machine pistol, because it is illegal in my state.

Put another way, and using the driver's license analogy, your driver's license is recognized in my state, but if your state speed limit is 70 and mine is 55, you will get a ticket for doing 70 in a 55 in my state, no matter what the limit is for you, back home.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

...and (c)

(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified permit holder” means an individual who—

(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active Permit Holders, as determined by, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active permit holders within that State;

What would be the point of adding that? Only one state has no provision for issuing carry permits, and thus no standards for a permit -- Vermont. Your language would require Vermonters to get "qualified" by a law enforcement agency, and who knows if any law enforcement agency in Vermont would be interested in qualifying non-LEOs.

Some states are effectively "shall issue," PA, for example, doesn't require any "qualification." Apply, pay the fee, pass the background check, pick up your license. In many counties of PA you walk in with an application and walk out with a license to carry. Why add language about "qualified"? We're talking about the concept of requiring the states to respect the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. The fact that someone has a permit (or license) from a state is the only evidence needed to demonstrate that the individual has satisfied the requirements of the issuing state. Got a current, vaid permit? Good to go.

Why are you trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be?

 

[steve4102]

It's not my language, it is what the LEOSA uses for a "Qualified" retired LEO.

Just substitute/edit (back) retired law enforcement officer, for qualified permit holder.

 

[BarryLee]

I’ve linked to a brief article from the WSJ where they touch on a few firearms related agenda items including recognizing other State's permits.

Oops, forgot you have to be a subscriber to read all the article. Well, if you can access it here's an interesting article.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nra-plans-to-push-gun-friendly-agenda-under-donald-trumps-administration-1479933567

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It's not my language, it is what the LEOSA uses for a "Qualified" retired LEO.

Just substitute/edit (back) retired law enforcement officer, for qualified permit holder.

But LEOs and (especially) retired LEOs don't (or didn't, prior to the LEOSA) generally have any document "qualifying" them to carry when off duty and outside of their jurisdiction. All across the country, many departments had to come up with ID cards for their officers and their retirees as a result of the LEOSA.

Non LEOs who have a carry permit DO already have a "qualification" document -- their state-issued license or permit. Once the law requires that other states shall recognize and honor licenses and permits issued by the other states, there is no need to drag in the "qualified" language from the LEOSA. The only "qualification" needed is the issuance of a carry permit by a state (or political subdivision thereof -- in PA, for example, the LTCF is issued by the county sheriff).

Again, don't make this more complicated than it needs to be. The anti-gun politicians will take care of that for you. Our job isn't to help them, it's to be prepared to counter their arguments. All we want to do is put the force of law behind the full faith and credit provision of the Constitution with regard to firearms carry licenses/permits.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The same laws that require each state to give full faith and credit to the permits and licenses of other states, have sections that specifically refer to arms, and through them, while the state must recognize your right to carry via home state permit, you are only allowed to carry in their state, in compliance with their state laws.

???

What laws are you referring to? There are no such laws -- if there were such a law, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes, I know the Constitution is supposed to be the highest law of the land, but somehow apparently it has escaped judicial notice that issuing a carry permit is an "act" of a state entitiy and thus under the purview of the full faith and credit provision. All we want to do (at the moment) is to drag the states, kicking and screaming, to recognize the full faith and credit provision with respect to carry permits.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If you just say they need to recognize A permit. They can nail you on stuff you can carry in your home state but are not allowed in another state.

Yep. "Just like a driver's license." Or a vehicle registration. I'm a Jeeper. From participating in Jeep forums, I know that -- as just one example -- the laws regarding vehicle lifts vary wildly from one state to another. My state has a motor vehicle regulation that limits the height a vehicle can be lifted to 4 inches higher than stock. People from other states can drive through and in my state on their home state driver's license and vehicle regulation, but if the vehicle is lifted more than 4 inches they can be cited for that.

Dunno how old you are, but I know how old I am. Today, I think "right turn on red after a full stop" is the law in all states. I'm old enough to remember when that was not the case, so we had to either never turn right at a stop light, or try to remember if we were in a state where it was legal.

When Jeep came out with the Liberty in 2001, they had a model with off-road lights on the roof. In several states (including mine) those lights had to have physical covers on them so they couldn't be used on the road. That model wasn't allowed to be sold in Virginia because of VA's lighting regulations. But ... the driver's license from any state would allow anyone to drive into Virginia and get a ticket for illegal rooftop lights.

So national carry reciprocity would allow me to carry in New York, but it's up to me to know that I can't have a magazine with a capacity greater than ten rounds. I could carry in New Jersey, but it would be up to me to know that I can't carry hollow point ammunition. That's still better than not being able to carry at all in those states, and having to plan routes between the rest of the country and New England so as to minimize the time spent in traversing those states under the dubious protection of the FOPA.

The last time I visited North Carolina (several years ago), NC honored my PA LTCF. But ... I had to remember that I had to leave the gun in the car when having lunch in a Red Lobster, because Red Lobster served alcohol and at that time NC didn't allow carry in restaurants where alcohol was served.

So what's the problem with having to know the laws of the jurisdiction you're in? That's the case today, so why is that an objection to national reciprocity?

 

[Frank Ettin]

....somehow apparently it has escaped judicial notice that issuing a carry permit is an "act" of a state entitiy and thus under the purview of the full faith and credit provision....

I thought that we'd already driven a stake through the heart of this "full faith and credit" fallacy, but I guess not. So let's try again.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution. Let's look at what it actually says (Article IV, Section 1):

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.​

As far as a carry permit being a public act, it is not. "Public act" means:

(Law) an act or statute affecting matters of public concern. Of such statutes the courts take judicial notice.

or:

An act of legislation affecting the public as a whole

Let's look at how this actually applies:

• A common application is with respect to marriage. If a couple has entered into a marriage in one State under the laws of that State, they will be recognized as married in every other State. (But that doesn't mean that a marriage license issue in one State may be used to enter into a marriage in another State.)
  
  
• If one acquires title to property (real or personal) under the laws of one State, his ownership of that property will be recognized in every other State.
  
  
• If one secures a money judgement in one State against a person, that judgement may be enforced in the courts of another State in which the judgement debtor or his property might be found.
  
  
• "Full Faith and Credit" also serves a basis for state-to-state extradition of persons charge with crimes or convicted of crimes in other States.
  
  
• A and B negotiate and enter into a contract in State X under which B will be the general contractor and build a building for A in State Y. B is licensed as a general contractor in State Y, and A is a corporation incorporated in State Z, having its home office in State X, and doing business in various States including States X and Y. A dispute develops, and B sues A in court in State Y. Under common conflicts of law principles, the court in State Y will consider questions regarding the performance of that contract using the laws of State Y. But with regard to questions relating to the formation of the contract, the State Y court will usually apply the laws of State X.

"Full Faith and Credit" in general has not been applied with regard to activities subject to a license in a State. If you are licensed to practice medicine or do business as a contractor in one State, you in general can not expect to be able to lawfully practice medicine or do business as a contractor under that license in another State.

Driving is an exception. It is, however, not an exception because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. It's an exception because States have agreed among themselves to honor each others driver's licenses.

And since the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been around for over 200 years, you might expect there to be some history. See, for example, this article:

...In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935).....

Or this article:

...The Court first interpreted the clause in the 1813 case Mills v. Duryee [11 U.S. 481]. Currently, the Court has heard numerous cases involving the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court says that the clause can be used in three different ways. First, the clause can command a state to take jurisdiction, or control, over a claim that started in another state. Second, the clause can determine which state's law should be applied when a case involves more than one state. And lastly, the clause directs states to acknowledge and enforce court judgments from other states. ...

The Full Faith and Credit Clause can be very important -- even if perhaps not important to what concerns us here the most, the RKBA. But there are other legal matters which can be of huge significance to the parties involved, and with respect to which the Full Faith and Credit Clause can be extremely helpful.

• What if you and your spouse were required for business reasons to relocate from State B, the State in which you were married and in which you had lived for 10 years, to State A, but you discovered that once living under the laws of State A you were no longer considered to be married.
  
  
• A need to be able to enforce judgements or court orders in multiple States is very common. Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, you couldn't count on doing so.
  
  
• Disputes about who owns what are not uncommon especially when conflicting laws of multiple States are involved. The Full Faith and Credit Clause helps sort out those kinds of disputes.
  
  
• And then there are matters involving multi-state child custody disputes.

 

[JN01]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44_AMP
The same laws that require each state to give full faith and credit to the permits and licenses of other states, have sections that specifically refer to arms, and through them, while the state must recognize your right to carry via home state permit, you are only allowed to carry in their state, in compliance with their state laws.

???

What laws are you referring to? There are no such laws -- if there were such a law, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes, I know the Constitution is supposed to be the highest law of the land, but somehow apparently it has escaped judicial notice that issuing a carry permit is an "act" of a state entitiy and thus under the purview of the full faith and credit provision. All we want to do (at the moment) is to drag the states, kicking and screaming, to recognize the full faith and credit provision with respect to carry permits.
Aguila Blanca is offline Report Post

I think 44AMP was trying to say that some states have laws that recognize permits from other states, but those non(state) residents are still required to comply with the laws of the state they are visiting with regard to what, how, and where you may carry.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

For the benefit of those who have not read Mr. Trump's position and who are relying on what others have said he said, here is his statement on national carry reciprocity:

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

Source: https://whatyouthoughtiwentaway.wor...s-position-statement-on-the-second-amendment/

There is nothing in there about "national" (or "federal") permits. There is nothing in there about the federal government imposing training requirements. He is calling for full, national reciprocity. That's all.

Capisce?

 

[kilimanjaro]

Reciprocity is probably the simplest means to effect national carry rights. I can't see an issue about law-abiding permittees having to comply with the laws of another state, just like any motorist does today.

Eight-round magazines or concealment requirements, things like that, shouldn't be difficult to manage for a prudent individual.

 

[rickyrick]

If we got a national reciprocity, I'm sure our friends at the handgun law websites would hook us up with a state by state cheat sheet.

Some states would benefit from the added commerce.

 

[carguychris]

Eight-round magazines or concealment requirements, things like that, shouldn't be difficult to manage for a prudent individual.

True, but I think things could get sticky with regards to registration. I expect restrictive states to ratchet up their registration requirements in an effort to keep non-resident CHL holders out.

 

[44 AMP]

I expect restrictive states to ratchet up their registration requirements in an effort to keep non-resident CHL holders out.

I'm sorry, but this has me totally confused. What requirements are you referring to, and HOW would they keep anyone OUT of a state??

 

[carguychris]

Pardon the confusion, I left some critical words out.

I'm talking about handgun registration requirements applying to any handgun physically possessed in the state. This would not literally keep an out-of-state CHL holder from traveling there; they would just render it inconvenient to take a handgun, discouraging CHL holders from doing so.

 

[kilimanjaro]

It's a valid point, Chris, but my thought is that I don't register my car in another state when visiting. I would think a registration law would apply to the residents of that state, and not everyone else. It would certainly be something for SCOTUS to rule on, sounds like.

We could see a scenario where national carry is seamless in all but a few states that require registration, until SCOTUS sorts it out. Some states might quickly pass registration requirements, as well, if they thought that might scotch the deal.

Whatever the scenarios, national carry is going to cause a great deal of angst in a lot of places from a lot of people, including a lot of foolishness from lawmakers.

 

[carguychris]

...my thought is that I don't register my car in another state when visiting.

The critical difference is that AFAIK every state requires auto registration*, whereas only a handful of states require handgun registration, and some of those don't actually impose a full 100% registration requirement; as I understand it, some states have systems under which purchases from licensed dealers are registered but previously owned guns brought from elsewhere are not, and/or the records are maintained at the county or municipal level and are not readily shared.

This inconsistency undermines arguments against registration on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The validity of requiring 100% registration may have to be argued before the federal courts on a pure 2A basis, which is less guaranteed to succeed.

We could see a scenario where national carry is seamless in all but a few states that require registration, until SCOTUS sorts it out. Some states might quickly pass registration requirements, as well, if they thought that might scotch the deal.

My thoughts exactly, and those SCOTUS cases will probably take a while to wind their way through the system, as the pro-registration anti-carry states would have an incentive to stall.

*EDIT TO ADD FOOTNOTE: For vehicles operated on public roads, a conceptual parallel to handguns that are to be carried in public places.

 

[danco]

The critical difference is that AFAIK every state requires auto registration

The purpose of vehicle registration is to collect taxes to support the publicly-owned infrastructure. There is no infrastructure to support when legally carrying a firearm.

 

[carguychris]

The purpose of vehicle registration is to collect taxes to support the publicly-owned infrastructure.

...AND to ensure that a vehicle can be quickly and easily traced back to its owner in the event of an accident, theft, or driving-related crime such as DUI. This is the primary underlying reason for having license plates.

A very strong argument can be made in favor of handgun registration on these bases. ("Your Honor, the purpose of the law is to ensure that out-of-state concealed handgun license holders cannot use their licenses to smuggle guns through our state. This purpose is obviously undermined if such people are exempt from the same registration requirements that our residents support and have no apparent problem obeying. We have made tools readily available for registering an out-of-state handgun online, although we apologize for the 2-month backlog that has resulted from state police budget cuts.")