National Right to Carry Reciprocity Legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.

JDR

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
1,641
Last edited:
Ordinarily I would say that this is a non-starter because it absolutely tramples states rights, but the SCOTUS decision on Friday proved that they don't care about states rights at all.

I don't think that legislation will ever pass and if it does the standards for concealed carry permits will rapidly become awful. California will say "ok, you can carry here but you have to take an 80 hour class with a test at the end that you have to score a 95% on, followed by a handgun shooting test at ranges from 3-100 yards and all shots must be within the black." My example might be a bit extreme, but things will get harder for everyone, not easier.
 
I would like to see the States adopt national carry-reciprocity. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

I would not like to see it ordered by the federal government. Fortunately, that will never happen.
 
Out of curiosity, what federal law requires states to recognize each others drivers license?

The logic the USSC used in the gay marriage legalization was fairly amazing. Essentially their argument was, because a majority of the states recognized same sex marriage, the rest of the states had to as well. This logic could be applied to nearly anything, including CCW.
 
NRA, federal laws ...

At first, I considered the federal or national CCW act a good idea but reading over the NRA-ILA's points, I can see the flaws or problems with it, :uhoh: .
A national CCW could mean firearm registration lists, inspections, fees, exceptions(denied areas), etc.

As a veteran & former federal employee(who might a part of the huge China identity-background/OPM security breach) I can tell you, the federal government isn't the best at collating or securing data, :mad: .
When I signed up for the E-benefits system, my personal email was one of 100s sent out by mistake from a hapless VA medical center employee. This happened 2 different times. :cuss:

I agree with the NRA. A federal level CCW is a bad concept.
 
...
I don't think that legislation will ever pass and if it does the standards for concealed carry permits will rapidly become awful. California will say "ok, you can carry here but you have to take an 80 hour class with a test at the end that you have to score a 95% on, followed by a handgun shooting test at ranges from 3-100 yards and all shots must be within the black." My example might be a bit extreme, but things will get harder for everyone, not easier.

Why would CA be so lax as to allow anyone with less than a score of 100% to pass? If it saves just one life in a life or death situation, demanding 100% correctness would be prudent.\SARCASM OFF

I have seen more than one on-line posting irresponsibly claiming that the recent SCOTUS ruling immediately permits "National Right to Carry". Here is one:

http://freepatriotpost.com/scotus-gay-marriage-decision-makes-conceal-carry-legal-in-all-50-states/

The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: …No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Here’s the kicker — as the writer at BearingArms.com notes: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends ‘certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy’ accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are ‘shall issue’ on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today they must.

Please don't do anything hasty and think the above link is your right to carry in any and all states. The SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage does not immediately grant National Right to Carry and you don't want to be the test case.

Additionally, both recent SCOTUS rulings undermines state laws and laws in general; not just ones that gun-rights advocates like, but ones that they dislike as well. What is bothersome about the heath care ruling is that it claims "the wording of a law does not matter all that much, it's the intent that matters". I always thought that SCOTUS was supposed to make the often difficult, but correct, decision. Using the argument that many will be denied heath care and throw the nation into turmoil should be irrelevant in a correct legal opinion.

chuck
 
Notional right to carry reciprocity legislation has been kicking around in Congress for years and not getting anywhere. What's new here?


Whats new, and deja vu, is that people are trying to apply the logic from recent unrelated case to the 2A debate topic.

As interesting as it is, it's still an unrelated case and doesn't provide much of a springboard.
 
danez71 said:
...Whats new, and deja vu, is that people are trying to apply the logic from recent unrelated case to the 2A debate topic....
Yes, I think that might probably be the case.

So let me now ask, how many people here who are taking that view have actually read the Supreme Court opinion in Obergefell? Would someone who has actually read the opinion like to explain to us exactly how that opinion makes a federal national carry reciprocity law more likely or attractive?

If anyone wants to take up this challenge, base your arguments solely on the exact language of the SCOTUS majority opinion, and not on secondary sources.
 
Answer to #7 ...

In short, yes. Some states mandate what type or caliber firearm a LEOSA member can carry or use.
They must also do re-quals & meet certain standards.
FLEOA members must also be mentally fit and not on any medications or have impairments that could prevent or interfere with carrying a loaded firearm.

Atty David Wong wrote a few detailed articles about HR218 & LEOSA. Research his work for more details.
 
Just because the SCOTUS dropped the ball and made a bad decision based on flawed application of the Constitution does NOT mean we should champion further misuse of the document.

If the states agree to adopt reciprocity, great. To be mandated at a federal level is not good.
 
I am continually disappointed by the number of supposed gun rights supporters who join with the anti-gun crowd over extending the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from a privilege granted to a few and highly restricted geographically to the entire Nation.

It seems that a lot of so-called gun rights supporters are not all that supportive of gun rights.

I agree that as long as so-called gun rights supporters oppose extending the right to carry Nation wide, it will be a long drawn out process if it ever happens.

In the meantime, gun owners and concealed carry permit holders are barred from many States and are unable to travel freely.
 
Notional right to carry reciprocity legislation has been kicking around in Congress for years and not getting anywhere. What's new here?

Things may change in 2016. ;)

If not the NRA and its allies will wait until the stars align and get nationwide national reciprocity passed when they can.

I'm personally astonished that anyone on this site can put "states rights" ahead of the 2nd Amendment.

What's more important to you people, states rights or the 2nd Amendment?
 
Lots of folks like to use CA as a punching bag when it comes to our firearms laws. They seem intent on doing this without any actual knowledge of CA's laws.

CA is one of those states that decided not to enact a state "standard" requirement for LEOSA qualifications.

Essentially, in everyday practice that means that the "standard" is whatever happens to satisfy the authority (COP, Sheriff, etc) signing off on a LEOSA qualification. Pretty much the same thing that's done with CCW license quals.

One agency may require the retiree pay a fee for range time, targets, ammo and the signed document, or limit the retirees they'll allow to schedule a qual session ... and yet another may open up their range to any interested retirees, at no charge (for anything), even if retired federal or transplanted from other states, counties, or who live outside their immediate jurisdiction. Just depends.

Pretty reasonable, all things considered.

As far as letting the feds enact legislation for national reciprocity? Careful what you wish for.

It wasn't exactly easy to get enough states to sign onto the legislation that became LEOSA, and it's been modified since first signed. Apparently, one of the things that it required to get enough states to sign onto it was that active and retired cops would be forced to qualify to an existing standard annually.

And that was for cops, who received a lot more exposure to firearms training and use-of-force/legal update training than the average private citizen. Imagine what they might want to see for private citizens? :uhoh:

Sound good to you?

Or, the states could avoid the potentially convoluted and burdensome federal legislative mess, and try to accommodate the wishes of other states by approaching it as they did the DLC/DLA, which were agreements between states. Of course, even those took quite a while, and it required a lot of work to achieve something acceptable.
 
Things may change in 2016. ;)

If not the NRA and its allies will wait until the stars align and get nationwide national reciprocity passed when they can.

I'm personally astonished that anyone on this site can put "states rights" ahead of the 2nd Amendment.

What's more important to you people, states rights or the 2nd Amendment?
The Second Amendment in Kentucky is not the same Second Amendment in NJ, NY, MD, MA, IL, HI and CA. My gun laws are better than those seven states I mentioned. I don't want my gun rights get worse in order to match up with those in 7 states in order to get some 'pie in the sky' carry permit law off the ground.

What would happen to get carry in all the states. All 50 would have to agree on carry laws, what happens if there was a national vote and only 49 states agreed with national Right to Carry Legislation? Or 47 states? Or 45?


Suppose in order to get such an agreement, pro-gun states would have to enact gun control so all all the states gun laws match up and then all the states can (possibly) agree to this legislation. Well I sure as hell don't want Kentucky's gun laws go the way of New Jersey or New York in order to satisfy some National Carry law that probably won't pass anyway. I can't see NJ or NY allowing me to visit those states with a loaded handgun in the glove compartment without a permit---because in Kentucky I can do that now. NJ and NY won't agree on it.

I can carry a 17 round Glock in Kentucky, but with this law will there be a problem carrying that same weapon in NJ, NY, MD, CA right? Of course there would be a problem. The firearm you carry now legally in your state might not be legal in the state you would visit even if this legislation became law...which I doubt it will.

And since NJ, MD and HI are may not issue states, how is National Right to Carry Reciprocity legislation going to help gun owners in those states when those states don't issue carry permits it's own citizens? It doesn't.

New Jersey hasn't had any pro-gun legislation signed into law for as long as anyone can remember. Hell they are still coming out with still more draconian anti-gun legislation in that state! NJ would willingly go along with a reciprocity legislation? And they don't issue carry permits to their citizens. How is that going to work?
.
 
Last edited:
I'm personally astonished that anyone on this site can put "states rights" ahead of the 2nd Amendment.

What's more important to you people, states rights or the 2nd Amendment?

I live in what is supposed to be The State of Florida, which also affirms and recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms in its own state constitution.

The people of the state here quite frequently vote in a different direction than do SCOTUS judges, or other legislators located in some enclave 800 miles north of me. For example, in 2008, a bill affirming the definition of marriage as being a union between one man and one woman passed with over a 70 percent vote, and became law. The SCOTUS, at the federal level, has decided that what the majority here voted for is irrelevant.

I believe the people of each state should self-govern at the state level, and if firearms-rights are important to them, then they should work on that at that level.

The people of each state should also be working on scaling back the role of the federal government to that level at which it was intended to be.
 
National right-to-carry reciprocity legislation need not impose any standards, registration, or other negatives that the nay-sayers on this board keep harping about. Simply have Congress pass a law withholding all law enforcement assistance funding to any state that does not recognize the concealed carry permits of every other state in the union. Even though the "New" states (York and Jersey) would bawl like branded calves about the untrained, unwashed masses from flyover country being able to carry in their consecrated conclaves, they would quickly fall in line. :p

Moreover, the denizens of said states would be likely to demand equally unencumbered carry rights, and the state officialdom more inclined to loosen their restrictions, since armed yokels from Utah or similar environs with no training whatsoever are now wandering freely about without causing mayhem. :evil::neener::neener::neener:
 
BryanDavis,

Read and research the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

Then read and research the very successful use of the 10th Amendment that has resulted in conceal carry laws in all 50 States.

After doing all of that present a logical, factual argument as to why gun owners in Kansas who fought a long and successful fight to have the right to unlicensed open and concealed carry, unrestricted transportation of loaded and unloaded firearms in their vehicles, no magazine capacity limits, no restrictions on bullet type and style, non-criminal law for carrying in a building that has no guns signs posted should compromise on any of our rights to a overly expansive Central Government.

I fail to understand why gun owners are willing to surrender our rights when we are winning the fight in the States and in the Courts while preventing more restrictive gun laws on the Federal level from being passed.
 
Last edited:
...
I can carry a 17 round Glock in Kentucky, but with this law will there be a problem carrying that same weapon in NJ, NY, MD, CA right? ...

Valid point. Last time I checked, LEOSA offers an exemption for the concealable handgun and ammunition, but not the magazine (capacity). That's one of the things that's occasionally discussed as possibly being amended some day.
 
Nothing in any of these bills would allow for the creation of a registry. All that would happen is that a CHL from Texas would be valid in NY. You'd still have to abide by the SAFE ACT. All that would change is that you could carry in NY.

Every time this topic comes up, people crawl out of the woodwork and swear up and down that Hilary/Obama/Teh Gheys/the UN are going to impose their "will" upon some backwater Mississippi town and suddenly the Second Amendment will vanish.

Let me clue some of you folks in. All the states will never agree on the 2A. NYS will not change, because NYC has all the votes. CA will not change because of LA and San Francisco. National Reciprocity will drag NY, NJ, and CA kicking and screaming into line with the rest of America in terms of ability to carry freely in said state. Said states will still (probably) get to keep their AWBs and local ordinances. You'll have to abide by them, but you'll be able to carry. That's a huge deal.

In a perfect world, yes, all the state's rights arguments people make would ring true. We don't live in that world. Honestly, I wonder if some people ever leave their domiciles, let alone travel out of their state when I read some of these responses.

I actually LIKE going to NYC. I have family all over NY. I' like to visit. San Francisco has beautiful weather and lots of culture. I don't like LA, but I might have to pass through if I want to go to San Diego. You know what would make my trip even better? NATIONAL RECIPROCITY.

Maybe one day, I'll get enough money to participate in a Gumball Rally from LA to NYC. I'll ccw my Sig p238 and stop for lunch in Chicago. I'll end it by attending a gay wedding in Central Park.

Some of you really need to get over yourselves.
 
All I see in the arguments for national reciprocity are people crying about how they are being individually inconvenienced or how much easier their lives would be if it passed.

The problem is one of constitutionality and principle. Just because a recent court decision bastardized the 14th and ignored the 10th amendments is no reason for us to clamor for the same foolishness because it suits our own ends. Am I for states rights? You bet. So were all the Founding Fathers. States are free to enact their own laws, in general conformance to federal law, according to the will of their own residents. This was one of the amendments the founders required for ratification of the Constitution.

Would it be nice if every state in the Union honored my Ohio CCW permit? Sure. But it would also take abrogation of the tenth and misapplication or the fourteenth to accomplish it at the federal level. Agreement among the states, and at times disagreement, is what keeps us from living in a totalitarian regime dictated from Washington D.C.
 
RustyShackelford
Answer to #7 ...
In short, yes. Some states mandate what type or caliber firearm a LEOSA member can carry or use.


I do not know of any states that mandate what type or caliber firearm a LEOSA member may carry or use. Under the Act you must qualify with either a revolver, pistol or both and may only carry the same type firearm that you qualified with. not the same firearm, the same type, either pistol and/or revolver. There are no mandates in the act on which calibers you can carry.
An agency may tell its active members which caliber and firearm they allow them to carry off duty but that would not apply to retired members.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top