Could the right president pass National Carry Reciprocity?

No ...

No, no they could not.

The president is not the one who generally introduces new legislation. That is generally done by representatives and senators. The President tho has the power to veto such legislation.....but his veto can be over-rode. Even a Democratic President would not veto a bill he knows is favored by the majority of his constituents.

Maybe. However, Democrats are likely to gain Senate seats in the 2016 elections for two reasons:

1. There are 24 Republicans up for reelection but only 10 Democrats
2. Democrats historically do better in Presidential election years.

Will Democrats pick up enough seats to take back the Senate? Unlikely. Will Republicans pick up another 5 seats to have a veto-proof majority? Very unlikely.

My personal prediction is for Democrats to pick up 3 seats in the Senate.

No, no they could not.

Click to expand...

Yes he likely could.

The executive branch legislates through regulations, and routinely forces states to do thing that violate state laws and even state constitutions.

The unfortunate fact is that we now have 3 legislative branches, the official legislative branch is the weakest of the 3. They got out legislated last year 6 to 1 by federal "regulations"

Now will a president do anything, definitely not and I'd wager no one else will either.

No

No, no they could not.
Research the LEOSA or universal medical care or other bills-laws where states/AGs would moan, cry, argue, sue(formal civil actions), etc.

A GOP president or wide support from GOP elected federal law makers is not a clean sweep or guarantee all pro-gun/2A measures will sweep into federal law.

I hope not I don't want feds to have any say over my carry. Dem president dem congress Good buy ccw . Needs to be kept in state hands. Doing a pretty fair job.

MICHAEL T said:

I hope not I don't want feds to have any say over my carry. Dem president dem congress Good buy ccw . Needs to be kept in state hands. Doing a pretty fair job.

Click to expand...

This.

The only way that results in a positive outcome is passing constitutional carry.
One state at a time.

Keep the ball out of the feds court.

No, no they could not.
Research the LEOSA or universal medical care or other bills-laws where states/AGs would moan, cry, argue, sue(formal civil actions), etc.

Click to expand...

400,000+ federal regulations, not passed by congress, not agreed to by states.
Sorry, he can do what he wants he just has to appoint the right people to the right places and wait, then fight public push back. They win more than they loose.

This is unfortunately the U.S. we live in.

United States Constitution Article IV, 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.

If my Driver's License, Marriage License, ect, so on, and so forth are good in every other state of the union because of the above why is Texas CHL not?

Even if we had the most well-intentioned, well-meaning president, there's very little they could do to improve things.

The whole idea that "just one more election folks, this time we're talking REAL change" is such a joke… regardless of your party of choice

jdh said:

United States Constitution Article IV, Section 1:
If my Driver's License, Marriage License, ect, so on, and so forth are good in every other state of the union because of the above why is Texas CHL not?

Click to expand...

Driver's Licenses are accepted in all 50 States by an agreement between the states. It has nothing to do with the Federal government. Marriage Licenses are not universally accepted as some states do not recognize legal marriage from other states.

On concealed carry the states could agree to accept each other's licenses if they wanted to. Many states do accept licenses from other states. The other option would be for the Federal government to pass a law establishing a Federal concealed carry permit that must be accepted in all 50 states. (The Federal government did something similar with Commercial Driver's Licenses in 1986) I personally don't see either happening any time soon.

I am always shocked and somewhat saddened by the paranoid people who think that National right to carry is just some evil plot to rid us of our gun rights.

Some times we are our own worst enemy!

I don't trust the Government, especially when the bureaucrats are making ridiculous rules that far exceed anything originally authorized by Congress, nor is Congress above really screwing up and making bad problems even worse!

But they can do some good things, even if it is by accident. Remember how the Right to carry in our National Parks was passed by a Democrat controlled Congress? (and no, I don't know what they were smoking, but I wish they would smoke more of it!)

In my view, anything they do to increase our gun rights is a good thing!

I realize some people don't want to be able to carry a gun concealed. Even a lot of gun owners and people on this site, considering the vehemence exhibited by some over even the possibility of being able to carry Nation wide.

Before you bunch of paranoid, tin foil hat wearing, anti National concealed Carry zealots speak out against the mere idea, don't you think it would be a good idea to see the proposed legislation first?

It might be a good law. It does depend of course who wrote it and how it is implemented, but without knowing the details, how can you reasonably be against it? Or do you really support the gun grabbers who would be your biggest allies in the fight gainst National carry?

hso said:

I don't think reciprocity of carry would ever get through Congress since many states friendly to carry would oppose having the Fed force them to honor the carry permits from other states in their state. Not many states with permits want to honor nonpermit states carry and few with class requirements want to honor permits from states without them. Because of this alone it is unlikely that the Senate would pass such a bill for any POTUS to have to decide to sign.

Click to expand...

Which ones?

Or do you mean California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey and such?

I just counted the number of States that accept Kansas CCl, and it is 36 States. Well over half the number of States, and even over the 2/3 majority to override a veto. I realize that not all such Senators would vote their States wishes, but some from non-Concealed Carry friendly State's Senators might well vote for it. If they had solid support from there Constituents that are Pro-gun Rights.

I don't see anything happening soon, but I think it would be a good idea to consider the possibility and speak to our Senators and Representatives about what we would consider to be a good Bill and our support for it!

Or we can just wrap our heads tighter in tin foil and whine about how evil the Government is.

MICHAEL T said:

I hope not I don't want feds to have any say over my carry.

Click to expand...

Do the Feds have any say over your driver's license being recognized in all states? It's a full faith & credit issue, like marriage, child custody and domestic violence protection orders.

hso said:

I don't think reciprocity of carry would ever get through Congress since many states friendly to carry would oppose having the Fed force them to honor the carry permits from other states in their state. Not many states with permits want to honor nonpermit states carry and few with class requirements want to honor permits from states without them. Because of this alone it is unlikely that the Senate would pass such a bill for any POTUS to have to decide to sign.

Click to expand...

You do know that when it's come up in the past, it only failed in the Senate by a handful of votes? You make it sound like an insurmountable hurdle.

No, for at least two reasons. Absolutely no such proactively conspicuous piece of legislation could ever muster at the federal level with today's MSM.

And there hasn't been a pro-gun president in?? How many generations? Very few, very few of those sitting in elected seats are at all what I would label pro-gun.

The President couldn't pass it, although the wrong President (Cough! Obama! Cough!) could certainly impede it. Such a bill would have to be passed by the house and senate, then sent to the President for signature, either alone, or attached to some "must sign" bill.

I don't think it would be proper for the Feds to mandate reciprocity among all the states, but they could well cut off all law enforcement aid funds to any state that didn't pass a law recognizing concealed weapons permits from all other states.

JSH1 said:

Maybe. However, Democrats are likely to gain Senate seats in the 2016 elections for two reasons:

1. There are 24 Republicans up for reelection but only 10 Democrats
2. Democrats historically do better in Presidential election years.

Will Democrats pick up enough seats to take back the Senate? Unlikely. Will Republicans pick up another 5 seats to have a veto-proof majority? Very unlikely.

My personal prediction is for Democrats to pick up 3 seats in the Senate.

Click to expand...

that seems likely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...2016#/media/File:2016_Senate_election_map.svg

several republican senators in otherwise blue/blueish states

There are two separate issues here. One is that CCW is a state issue. The other is that Federal Regulation trumps State law, regardless of legality, morality or ethics. The Republic is a thing of the past. You will see no legislation from the federal level that expands individual rights. Not in our lifetimes, even if you're a youngster right now.

This is it.

Art IV sec 1

Nothing else is required

AFS

Before you bunch of paranoid, tin foil hat wearing, anti National concealed Carry zealots speak out against the mere idea, don't you think it would be a good idea to see the proposed legislation first?

Click to expand...

I'm a bit surprised that a Jayhawker that lives in one of the most pro-gun states in the Union will support regulation by the Federal Government on Kansans right to carry.

Some of us have fought a long battle to change the gun laws in Kansas and we have much to show for it. Open and conceal carry without a permit, decriminalizing merely having a gun in a no-gun posted area, clarifying where firearms can be prohibited and establishing a set standard for type and where signage banning firearms can to be posted to be legal, eliminating home rule to prevent local governments from passing their own gun bans such as Wichita did and having a loaded firearm in your vehicle as important changes we have accomplished.

Kansas has entered into agreements with over thirty other states (36? I lost count has been a change or two I have not kept up with) recognizing each others conceal carry permit. After all of this success you now want go with you hand out and ask the Federal Government to pass laws regulating conceal carry.

Or we can just wrap our heads tighter in tin foil and whine about how evil the Government is

Click to expand...

I guess you were to busy to read about Obamas call for new gun laws yesterday.

Conceal carry laws are a perfect example of the 10th Amendment working as it is supposed to.

So if it were treated like a drivers license (full faith and credit) that would be fine but do you really believe that NY, CA, MA, NJ, Ill among a few others will simply allow folks from the rest of the states just waltz in with their home state issued permit? What about Vermont?
As a visitor to NYC, even if your permit was honored their state laws regulating concealed carry are to oppressive to make it worth while. I say stick with what we have and let the states play out as they will.

Procedurally, a "national reciprocity" bill would have to be introduced in the House or the Senate by members of those bodies. But the President, as "chief legislator," could propose such a bill and then get some members of his party to formally introduce it.

Assuming Republican control of the Presidency, as well as the House and the Senate, the stumbling block would be getting the 60 votes in the Senate that are needed to cut off debate. That is, 41 antigun senators could filibuster and prevent this from happening. And the way it looks, even some pro-gun senators might join the antigun side on this, being opposed to "federal interference" in state matters.

The filibuster threat could be bypassed by attaching reciprocity to some other "must pass" piece of legislation. But there are certain rules that amendments must be germane to the underlying piece of legislation.

In any case, "national reciprocity" seems to be a low priority for the pro-gun side. Would it want to spend its political capital on this? I would think that repealing the Hughes Amendment, for example, would have a higher priority.