National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Petition

coswabbit said:

it is nothing more than another layer of federal gun control.

Click to expand...

Agreed. With federal control comes federal regulations and restrictions.

I'm solidly against national reciprocity legislation. Currently, those of us in states with excellent carry laws have very little interference from the federal government regarding our daily carry. But federal legislation usually involves compromise. What if a compromise for a national reciprocity bill involves further restrictions on what and where I can carry? Right now I can carry any handgun virtually everywhere I go, and businesses have no ability to post signs making me a criminal if I concealed carry on their property. I want to keep it that way.

A national reciprocity bill would probably end up including more national restrictions on carry rules. And if it didn't, it's likely that there would be future restrictions enacted as a backlash. Many of us have it very good now, and we don't want to see the federal government get involved and make our good carry laws worse.

My fear is that we would all have to conform to the rules of the most restrictive states. I don't see the Congress treating it the same as a driver's license, where you follow the rules of the state you're in regardless of where your license was issued.

Elkins45 said:

My fear is that we would all have to conform to the rules of the most restrictive states. I don't see the Congress treating it the same as a driver's license, where you follow the rules of the state you're in regardless of where your license was issued.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY why I am AGAINST this idea. NY, NJ, DC, CA will set the tone; plus, once you let the Feds take over things, nothing ever goes as planned or intended. Will this become a defacto national gun registry, and what happens when the regime in DC changes? There are TOO many unanswered questions, and after the fiasco with ACA and the "let's just pass it and we'll read it later" mantra, I want everything spelled out explicitly.

George P said:

I want everything spelled out explicitly.

Click to expand...

And even if it’s spelled out explicitly, that doesn’t mean it can’t be changed in the future. And it doesn’t mean extra, more restrictive legislation won’t follow.

Imagine if the perfect (from our perspective) reciprocity bill passed and was signed into law. Now, imagine the reaction from anti-gunners nationwide: Since concealed carry is now a national issue with carry allowed in all 50 states, there’d certainly be a strong push to further regulate and restrict concealed carry nationwide. And that push would most likely be successful.

coswabbit said:

a. those states w/o live fire criteria will be federally mandated to implement them.

Click to expand...

That's a real concern. Right now, Virginia has the next best thing to constitutional carry: permitless open carry, and a pro forma training requirement for concealed carry that can be satisfied with an online training course. Already, a bill has been introduced in the Virginia legislature that would require face-to-face training, and it won't be long before live fire is added to that. I can see a nationwide convergence on an extensive (and expensive) training standard.

It seems to me that nationwide reciprocity, while a good idea in theory, is a red herring being used to distract our attention while really meaningful restrictions (like AWB's and magazine bans) are being pushed through on the state level.

And there are people who oppose liberalized "shall issue" laws because somehow they infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

Here's a tip -- when I was young, you COULD NOT carry a firearm in most states. Period. For those states that had permits, you had to have political clout to get one.

Nowadays, anyone with a clean record can get a CCW in 90% of the states, and people with out-of-state CCW can carry in most states.

Things are getting BETTER, not worse. So for those of you who oppose national reciprocity, get out of the way or get run over.

AlexanderA said:

This legislation is going nowhere, but in the meantime it's an excellent fundraising vehicle for both pro- and anti-gun organizations.

We need to be worried more about upcoming "assault weapons" bans and magazine-capacity restrictions on the state level. That's where the real battlegrounds are going to be.

Click to expand...

The new idiot elected by the carpet baggers in Northen Virginia has already had his Bloomberg supported buddies in the House of Delegates introduce this kind of legislation. This while saying he’s going to expand the pro felon work of McAwful.

He’s also said one of his top priorities is not only a ban, 10 round limits but also a one gun a month purchase limit.

Hokie_PhD said:

The new idiot elected by the carpet baggers in Northen Virginia has already had his Bloomberg supported buddies in the House of Delegates introduce this kind of legislation. This while saying he’s going to expand the pro felon work of McAwful.

He’s also said one of his top priorities is not only a ban, 10 round limits but also a one gun a month purchase limit.

Click to expand...

When you vote for carpetbaggers -- New Yorkers who only pretend to live in Virginia -- what do you expect?

Vern Humphrey said:

And there are people who oppose liberalized "shall issue" laws because somehow they infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

Here's a tip -- when I was young, you COULD NOT carry a firearm in most states. Period. For those states that had permits, you had to have political clout to get one.

Nowadays, anyone with a clean record can get a CCW in 90% of the states, and people with out-of-state CCW can carry in most states.

Things are getting BETTER, not worse. So for those of you who oppose national reciprocity, get out of the way or get run over.

Click to expand...

Things have gotten better because of actions taken at the state level. So now you want the federal government to get involved? Has it been your experience that when the federal government butts in it makes things better? It hasn’t been mine.

Don’t get me wrong, it would tickle me to no end if NYC were forced to accept my carry permit. But given that I believe in state’s rights that seems a bit hypocritical of me. The only way this makes sense to me is if Sullivan and other anti-2A laws are determined to be unconstitutional. That way federal imposition would just be to force compliance with the Constitution and not just shoving my preferences down someone else’s throat.

Things are getting BETTER, not worse. So for those of you who oppose national reciprocity, get out of the way or get run over.

Click to expand...

Then I'll watch out for your car, or more likely, the subsequent steam roller from the libs over my right to carry

Elkins45 said:

Things have gotten better because of actions taken at the state level. So now you want the federal government to get involved? Has it been your experience that when the federal government butts in it makes things better? It hasn’t been mine.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you noticed, they the Constitution is a FEDERAL document.

Elkins45 said:

Don’t get me wrong, it would tickle me to no end if NYC were forced to accept my carry permit. But given that I believe in state’s rights that seems a bit hypocritical of me.

Click to expand...

Do you believe the State of New York has the right to execute you without trial, despite the 5th Amendment provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

Do you believe the State of New York has the right to impose a state religion, despite the First Amendment?

Do you believe the State of New York has the right to impose censorship, despite the First Amendment?

Elkins45 said:

The only way this makes sense to me is if Sullivan and other anti-2A laws are determined to be unconstitutional. That way federal imposition would just be to force compliance with the Constitution and not just shoving my preferences down someone else’s throat.

Click to expand...

So you would oppose a mere LAW that overturned state religions, censorship, or executions without trial?

Let me add this: Do we agree that Congress has a duty to implement and enforce the Constitution? If so, HOW do they do that?

Hint: Many amendments include words like "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Appropriate legislation is THE means by which Congress implements and enforces the Constitution.

Vern Humphrey said:

I don't know if you noticed, they the Constitution is a FEDERAL document.

Do you believe the State of New York has the right to execute you without trial, despite the 5th Amendment provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

Do you believe the State of New York has the right to impose a state religion, despite the First Amendment?

Do you believe the State of New York has the right to impose censorship, despite the First Amendment?

So you would oppose a mere LAW that overturned state religions, censorship, or executions without trial?

Click to expand...

It would be geometrically impossible for you to have missed my point by any further.

Elkins45 said:

It would be geometrically impossible for you to have missed my point by any further.

Click to expand...

You said, and I quote: "Don’t get me wrong, it would tickle me to no end if NYC were forced to accept my carry permit. But given that I believe in state’s rights that seems a bit hypocritical of me."

Does that not mean that you believe states have the right to violate the Bill of Rights?

If I've got that wrong, please explain what you DO mean by the quoted sentences.

Vern, your argument would only make sense if the higher courts had already ruled (or were expected to rule in the future) that the restrictions put in place by anti-gun states were unconstitutional. But they haven’t. In fact, courts have ruled several times that many of those restrictions ARE constitutional. Remember: What you and I think is constitutional doesn’t mean jack, what matters is what the courts say.

So, this means that if we enact a national reciprocity law, we should be willing to accept all the court-approved “reasonable restrictions” that may be added to the bill or may follow after, including heavy restrictions on what and where I can carry. Or even what I can own. But me, I’m not willing to accept that, which is why I currently oppose any national reciprocity legislation.

Maybe I’ll change my mind when enough of the restrictions enacted by anti-gun courts have been ruled unconstitutional. But until then, those restrictions aren’t legally considered unconstitutional, no matter what opinion you and I might have on them.

Vern Humphrey said:

You said, and I quote: "Don’t get me wrong, it would tickle me to no end if NYC were forced to accept my carry permit. But given that I believe in state’s rights that seems a bit hypocritical of me."

Does that not mean that you believe states have the right to violate the Bill of Rights?

If I've got that wrong, please explain what you DO mean by the quoted sentences.

Click to expand...

Theohazard did a pretty good job of it above, but I will add some explanation of my quote. What YOU believe to be a violation of the BOR and what the 9th Circuit believe to be one are probably radically different things. And as a practical matter it means what the courts say regardless of what we might agree the plain meaning of the words to be. So when SCOTUS allows magazine capacity limits in commie states to stand, they then become something that imediately would be applied to all 50 through this federal imposition if it contains some sort of “lowest common denominator” clause.

Anybody that thinks about letting the camel’s nose under the tent has probably never smelled a camel. I’m not willing to trade the gun laws of KY for those of NJ or HI in exchange for being able to carry there.

Well said!

Theohazard said:

Vern, your argument would only make sense if the higher courts had already ruled (or were expected to rule in the future) that the restrictions put in place by anti-gun states were unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

When did any court rule any state can set aside the Constitution? When did they say "states rights" trump the Bill of Rights?

Vern Humphrey said:

When did any court rule any state can set aside the Constitution? When did they say "states rights" trump the Bill of Rights?

Click to expand...

You seem to be missing my point completely. But I’ll try to explain it one more time.

The courts have ruled several times that the restrictions you claim are unconstitutional are, in fact, constitutional. Remember, what you think is constitutional doesn’t mean a thing.

So that means the federal government can impose legislation that further restricts gun rights and at the same time is seen as perfectly constitutional by the courts. And I think that’s much more likely to happen if national reciprocity passes.

Vern Humphrey said:

When did any court rule any state can set aside the Constitution? When did they say "states rights" trump the Bill of Rights?

Click to expand...

Your opinion of what is constitutional is probably quite similar to mine...and equally worthless.

I’ll turn your question on it’s head and ask you one: when did any court decide that magazine capacity restrictions and semi-auto bans were unconstitutional?

The answer is that they didn’t. And if the courts haven’t then they stand as being perfectly legal until such time as a court ruled otherwise. Constitutionality is determined by judges, not by the opinions of people on gun forums.

You seem to be laboring under some fantasy that Congress is going to sweep into NY and say everybody can carry 15 round magazines now. We’re saying it’s more likely they will sweep into the other 49 states and say there’s a seven round limit for all.

You seem to be laboring under some fantasy that Congress is going to sweep into NY and say everybody can carry 15 round magazines now. We’re saying it’s more likely they will sweep into the other 49 states and say there’s a seven round limit for all.

Click to expand...

Exactly! And whatever those restrictions turn out to be, you can bet tat NY, CA, NJ, DC, et al will be the source of the input

Theohazard said:

You seem to be missing my point completely. But I’ll try to explain it one more time.

The courts have ruled several times that the restrictions you claim are unconstitutional are, in fact, constitutional. Remember, what you think is constitutional doesn’t mean a thing.

So that means the federal government can impose legislation that further restricts gun rights and at the same time is seen as perfectly constitutional by the courts. And I think that’s much more likely to happen if national reciprocity passes.

Click to expand...

Where did your belief in states rights come into this picture?

Vern Humphrey said:

Where did your belief in states rights come into this picture?

Click to expand...

I’m really not sure what you’re talking about here. My belief in states’ rights has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation here. All that matters is this: The courts decide what is constitutional and what isn’t. That’s it. We can all have our own views on what’s constitutional and how much states’ rights matter, but it doesn’t mean a thing in the real world.