Another Reciprocity Approach

[Hypnogator]

I think the efforts to Federally mandate reciprocity are laudable, but misguided and probably destined to fail under a Democratic filibuster. Moreover, they raise concerns about Federal mandates to states.

Perhaps a better approach would be to deny Federal law enforcement funds to any state or subordinate governmental entity that issues concealed carry permits which does not recognize concealed carry permits from all jurisdictions. Because this is a tax/revenue issue, it can be passed with a 51% majority in both houses of Congress!

Such legislation would apply to New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, and other "home rule" cities. The loss of millions if not billions of $ would ensure quick, if grudging, compliance.

 

[Cannibul]

The Federal "Mandate" is the Second Amendment.

How would you feel if states started requiring a license for free speech? A tax on going to Church?

It's only through Federal inaction we have arrived at a point where states feel they can infringe on Second Amendment rights with impunity,

It's going to take Federal action to reverse this.

 

[danez71]

That idea has been batted around a bit already.

Wasn't Obama care a mandate? And I've heard something to the effect that filler bustering is about dead.... something about the Dems did away with it....?

 

[jdc1244]

I think the efforts to Federally mandate reciprocity are laudable, but misguided and probably destined to fail under a Democratic filibuster. Moreover, they raise concerns about Federal mandates to states.

Perhaps a better approach would be to deny Federal law enforcement funds to any state or subordinate governmental entity that issues concealed carry permits which does not recognize concealed carry permits from all jurisdictions. Because this is a tax/revenue issue, it can be passed with a 51% majority in both houses of Congress!

Such legislation would apply to New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, and other "home rule" cities. The loss of millions if not billions of $ would ensure quick, if grudging, compliance.

A truly ridiculous – and likely un-Constitutional – proposal.

In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) the Supreme Court held that Congress’ exercising of its spending power must be done in a manner that is in no way coercive as to compel the states to act in a certain way, absent the means by which the states might replace lost Federal funds from another Federal source.

To deny a state Federal law enforcement funds for no other reason than not establishing reciprocity with another state’s concealed carry law would clearly be coercive and beyond Congress’ spending power.

Moreover, seeking to subject states to Federal punitive measures because of how they compose laws concerning concealed carry requirements, laws that in no way violate the Second Amendment, is reckless, irresponsible, and inconsistent with the fundamental tents of Federalism.

 

[Twiki357]

Moreover, seeking to subject states to Federal punitive measures because of how they compose laws concerning concealed carry requirements, laws that in no way violate the Second Amendment, is reckless, irresponsible, and inconsistent with the fundamental tents of Federalism.

Well that definitely was not the case back in the 1970s when every state was Federally mandated to lower their speed limits to 55 mph or lose Federal highway funding.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I think the efforts to Federally mandate reciprocity are laudable, but misguided and probably destined to fail under a Democratic filibuster. Moreover, they raise concerns about Federal mandates to states.

Perhaps a better approach would be to deny Federal law enforcement funds to any state or subordinate governmental entity that issues concealed carry permits which does not recognize concealed carry permits from all jurisdictions. Because this is a tax/revenue issue, it can be passed with a 51% majority in both houses of Congress!

Such legislation would apply to New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, and other "home rule" cities. The loss of millions if not billions of $ would ensure quick, if grudging, compliance.

<Sigh> and if their response is just to stop issuing ANY permits?

 

[danez71]

A truly ridiculous – and likely un-Constitutional – proposal.

In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) the Supreme Court held that Congress’ exercising of its spending power must be done in a manner that is in no way coercive as to compel the states to act in a certain way, absent the means by which the states might replace lost Federal funds from another Federal source.

To deny a state Federal law enforcement funds for no other reason than not establishing reciprocity with another state’s concealed carry law would clearly be coercive and beyond Congress’ spending power.

Moreover, seeking to subject states to Federal punitive measures because of how they compose laws concerning concealed carry requirements, laws that in no way violate the Second Amendment, is reckless, irresponsible, and inconsistent with the fundamental tents of Federalism.

I think you're overstating that case...maybe to the point of misrepresenting it.

The Feds won that case to withhold money and the Court said that South Dakotas "argument as to coercion is shown to be more rhetoric than fact."

The court did rule that the Feds can attach conditions to the money.

They also laid out some guidelines for which they can/cant.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/203/case.html

Well that definitely was not the case back in the 1970s when every state was Federally mandated to lower their speed limits to 55 mph or lose Federal highway funding.

Here's a few other times its been done with the highway funds.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/454167/?client=ms-android-verizon

 

[The Bushmaster]

The only federal mandate we need is that state issued CCW's are treated by all states just as a driver's license is honored state to state. We DO NOT want the feds getting too involved in our business.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The only federal mandate we need is that state issued CCW's are treated by all states just as a driver's license is honored state to state. We DO NOT want the feds getting too involved in our business.

States honoring each other's driver's licenses is the result of an agreement among the States and has nothing to do with the federal government.

 

[Old Dog]

The only federal mandate we need is that state issued CCW's are treated by all states just as a driver's license is honored state to state. We DO NOT want the feds getting too involved in our business.

Well, gosh. Fact of the matter is, most every adult in this country drives or at least maintains a state driver license for identification purposes.

Being as only about .5% to 2.0% of this country's citizens actually bother to obtain concealed carry licenses, this is just not gonna be seen as a pressing matter by most state legislators or states' attorney generals -- the group that would need to take action -- in all 50 states -- to make this happen. As Ettin says, the federal government isn't going to be involved ...

 

[deadin]

Another thing that has always bothered me on this subject....

If and when any of the anti gun States (NY, CA etc.) try to promote their philosophy in another State, there's squealing like scalded pigs from the other State about State's Rights and "Mind your own business". How can we expect "Big Brother" to side with us and not them? (Familiar with the old term "What is good for the goose, is good for the gander"?)

Change is going to have to come from within, not forced from without.

 

[jdc1244]

I think you're overstating that case...maybe to the point of misrepresenting it.

The Feds won that case to withhold money and the Court said that South Dakotas "argument as to coercion is shown to be more rhetoric than fact."

The court did rule that the Feds can attach conditions to the money.

They also laid out some guidelines for which they can/cant.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/203/case.html








Here's a few other times its been done with the highway funds.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/454167/?client=ms-android-verizon

You don't understand.

The case establishes the acceptable standards by which the Federal government may use the withholding of funds to encourage state compliance, standards which the OP's premise fails to meet.

 

[230RN]

My general principle is:

Whatever may be written in terms of being satisfactory to us in one year can be amended in the next year to be not so satisfactory.

Foot in the door, camel's nose under the tent flaps, and all other applicable platitudes.

I'm adamant about keeping the federal government out of the concealed carry business.

Regardless of the NRA's recommendations.

And I'm an NRA lifer.

While I recognize the legitimate desire for some of us to carry in restrictive States, the problem should be resolved within those States regarding reciprocity or recognition of carry permits. Difficult, but preferable to having the Federal Government toying with the concept of concealed carry.

There. I said it, and I ain't takin' it back.

Terry, 230RN

 

[deadin]

Well that definitely was not the case back in the 1970s when every state was Federally mandated to lower their speed limits to 55 mph or lose Federal highway funding.

That had to do with speed limits on Federally funded highways. What Federal funds does the Government give to the States related to firearms that they could withhold?? (I don't think law enforcement could be stretched enough to qualify.)

 

[danez71]

You don't understand.

The case establishes the acceptable standards by which the Federal government may use the withholding of funds to encourage state compliance, standards which the OP's premise fails to meet.

No,,,, I do understand.

I'll point out what, I guess, you failed to notice:

The court did rule that the Feds can attach conditions to the money.

They also laid out some guidelines for which they can/cant.

I think the OP is right about the 51% comment. They just tie it to 'public safety' or whatever. Then it goes to the courts if they want to challenge it and they get to decide, not you or us.

If you notice in the link I provided, the highway funds have been used as a tool to both promote a national speed limit and also to eliminate the national speed limit. That Fed funds are used as bargaining chips is not terribly uncommon.


Having said that, I doubt it will work.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Well, it's sort of like the Voting Rights Act.
Some could say that the Feds should keep their noses out of local policies that restrict certain groups from voting.
But the Constitution says that all have the right to vote.

Therefore, Congress has a duty to protect those whose rights are being violated.

 

[Hypnogator]

Well, it's sort of like the Voting Rights Act.
Some could say that the Feds should keep their noses out of local policies that restrict certain groups from voting.
But the Constitution says that all have the right to vote.

Therefore, Congress has a duty to protect those whose rights are being violated.

Excellent point!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Virginia had its Racial Integrity Act of 1924 overthrown in 1967 by the US Supreme Court. Virginia jailed the Loving couple, white husband, black wife, for a year because they were living in Virginia after being legally married in Maryland. After the court ruling was handed down the Act was not enforced, but it was not repealed until 1975. ACLU was active in getting the Supreme Court involved, without federal legislation on marriage.

Achieving justice and fair play requires stratedgy and picking the time and grounds on which to take a stand and the venue in which to argue the case, because the oppressors always have the best of intentions and refuse to acknowledge error. Congress may be the proper venue, maybe SCOTUS.

WE have drivers license reciprocacy through the states, marriage reciprocacy through the states with nudging from SCOTUS.

 

[boom boom]

JDC1244, the case that you want regarding the spending clause limitations is actually King v. Burwell (aka Obamacare) dealing with cutting off funds to states that did not extend medicaid. The court distinguished this case from SD v. Dole.

Regarding SD v. Dole, what you are quoting is obiter dictum--that is reasoning extraneous to resolving the case. As noted above, in that case, federal denial of highway funds was upheld by the Sup. Ct. and had real effects in Louisiana as funds were cutoff for a number of years before Louisiana caved and raised its drinking age.

Bottom Line:
Simply, the federal government has the power under the Commerce clause to override state laws affecting travelers just like it overrode state liability laws regarding suing gun manufacturers.

Travel is actually one of the few privileges and immunities (see the Constitution and the 14th Amendment) that the Court has deigned to define along with residence requirements as unenumerated constitutionally protected rights. While New York for example, can keep its silly gun laws and apply it to citizens, Congress has the power to override this (either partially or wholly) via the Commerce clause as it applies to those traveling through the state (with a broad definition of travel). See Heart of Atlanta Motel v U.S. for example where the 1964 Civil Rights Act was based on the Commerce clause and ironically not on the 13th and 14th Amendments (due to the Court scuttling congressional action based on those in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases). In fact, in the 1986 FOPA, they have already done so with the provision that even Illinois laws that required FOID to possess firearms cannot be applied to travelers who comply with FOPA (locked case, unloaded, etc.).

BTW, as a practical reason, Congress using the Commerce clause to do so makes it unlikely that a Supreme Court challenge to the law would be upheld (see Ileto v. Glock cert denied) due to its effects on other federal laws (see Raich v. Gonzalez). Indeed, the 9th Circuit opinion does not indicate that the appellants even tried to raise the Commerce issue in their challenge to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Congress did, however, made it clear when they passed this law that protection of 2nd amendment rights and regulating interstate commerce were the constitutional grants of authority needed to pass this law. BTW, FOPA (1986) and partially the GCA of 1968 rely on the commerce clause for their authority (the 1934 NFA's basis was chiefly the taxing power as far can be ascertained probably due to the 1934 era restrictive interpretation of the commerce clause). The later Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was based on the Commerce clause probably because the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce clause broadened.

The constant comparison is with drivers licenses does not apply to constitutionally protected rights by the way--given MacDonald and Heller have declared the 2nd to be an individual right protected by the Constitution, there is no such amendment that directly gives a constitutional right to have a driver's license. Marriage licenses might be a bit closer comparison with the Windsor and Loving decisions but that is based on the full faith and credit in general rather than a specific enumerated right. The court has a doctrine that states do not have to accept every other state's actions under the public policy exception which applies until federal courts decided that it doesn't.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I think the efforts to Federally mandate reciprocity are laudable, but misguided and probably destined to fail under a Democratic filibuster. Moreover, they raise concerns about Federal mandates to states.

Perhaps a better approach would be to deny Federal law enforcement funds to any state or subordinate governmental entity that issues concealed carry permits which does not recognize concealed carry permits from all jurisdictions. Because this is a tax/revenue issue, it can be passed with a 51% majority in both houses of Congress!

Such legislation would apply to New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, and other "home rule" cities. The loss of millions if not billions of $ would ensure quick, if grudging, compliance.

There is some merit to this idea and the only way I would be in favor of any involvement of the fed regarding nat'l reciprocity. I certainly don't want any attempt by congress to try and "fix" it thru legislation. States will sue and the SC will get involved. No need to do that. Here is a link to the JAG program that provides money to state LE.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/23/us/flow-of-money-and-equipment-to-local-police.html

This is about to happen anyway with immigration as soon as Trump is in office. Sanctuary cities that are blocking the efforts of the immigration service to deport illegals in local custody are about to loose some federal dollars. He's not screwing around.

 

[CoalTrain49]

A truly ridiculous – and likely un-Constitutional – proposal.

In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) the Supreme Court held that Congress’ exercising of its spending power must be done in a manner that is in no way coercive as to compel the states to act in a certain way, absent the means by which the states might replace lost Federal funds from another Federal source.

To deny a state Federal law enforcement funds for no other reason than not establishing reciprocity with another state’s concealed carry law would clearly be coercive and beyond Congress’ spending power.

Moreover, seeking to subject states to Federal punitive measures because of how they compose laws concerning concealed carry requirements, laws that in no way violate the Second Amendment, is reckless, irresponsible, and inconsistent with the fundamental tents of Federalism.

These are grants totally dependent on the justice dept. and how they want to administer those.

 

[Dog Soldier]

I don't really know what an Operators Licenses has to do with the 2nd Amendment? And besides it seems like every gun owner flies into New York City? Humm? I don't know anyone that visits New York expecting a Big welcome for NRA Members.
And my Drivers licenses allows me drive 80 miles an hour in Wyoming. It appears if I drive over 80 MPH in New York I will be jailed and fined $800 dollars? Where is this National Reciprocity of Driver's license?

 

[danez71]

I don't really know what an Operators Licenses has to do with the 2nd Amendment? And besides it seems like every gun owner flies into New York City? Humm? I don't know anyone that visits New York expecting a Big welcome for NRA Members.
And my Drivers licenses allows me drive 80 miles an hour in Wyoming. It appears if I drive over 80 MPH in New York I will be jailed and fined $800 dollars? Where is this National Reciprocity of Driver's license?

And if you drove 80mph in Wyoming in front of a school you may end up in jail for reckless driving and endangering the children.

Do you have a point with your hyperbole post?

 

[Dog Soldier]

Well I don't know where you live? But Wyoming does not build Public Schools on Interstate highways. But that is why we have sensible educated highway Engineers.

 

[danez71]

I live in AZ and CA.

Your driver's license allows you to drive in another state... it doesn't allow for you to bring your states speed limit laws, or your child-seat laws for that matter, with you.

Is there some relationship of speed limits and reciprocity that your attempting to make?


Do you have a point or are you just making hyperbole statements, again?