Could the right president pass National Carry Reciprocity?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by usmarine0352_2005, May 31, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    NO, I do not.

    A government big enough to give you anything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.
    I prefer this to remain at the state level. Then again, I would prefer 99% of Federal regulations - especially in the welfare/social/education realms - to be at the state level.

    NY, NJ, MD among others, will continuously sue to stop any pending possibility of what you seek.
     
  2. Plan2Live

    Plan2Live Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,019
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    I don't travel around enough that it matters to me. Probably a lot of folks share my opinion. Throw in the overwhelming number of people who don't carry and I just don't see this ever becoming an issue Congress feels compelled to take up.
     
  3. fastbolt

    fastbolt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,045
    Location:
    Within the lightning of realization
    Answer to OP's original question? No. Not how it works.

    People who like to mention "full faith & credit" might want to read more of its background and why it exists in the first place.

    People who think this is just like driver's licenses might find the history of the Driver License Compact, the Non-Resident Violator Compact and the Driver License Agreement interesting (and not what they might expect, or assumed). It was a long and difficult path to finally get the driver licensing departments of the states to reach some consensus. That was at the state level, too, not congress.

    Then, look at what it eventually took to get congress to accept and pass the federal legislation that became LEOSA.

    I could easily see congress take the simple and easy step of looking at LEOSA as some sort of framework to develop a "national reciprocity" legislation for private citizen licensees ... meaning including some "common sense" things like requiring a similar sort of annual training and qualification (to the licensee's resident state standard, or an acceptable equivalent).

    Sound good to you? After all, that was considered necessary by congress (meaning in order to satisfy the concerns of some states) for active and honorably retired cops, meaning men and women who had already received a good bit of training in use of force, laws, firearms training, etc.

    What do you think those same states (members of congress and the senate) might think would be necessary for private citizens, who don't generally receive all the same original and continuing in-service training and legal updates as cops?

    I'd not be surprised if they decided that at least the same annual qualification "requirement" might be considered necessary for private citizens in order to carry concealed weapons among all the states, as well as the other restrictions contained within LEOSA. (If not additional ones.)

    I'm sure all the citizens with CCW/CHL licenses from various states would be good with being required to qualify annually, as cops do for LEOSA, right?

    Just look at how some of the existing reciprocity agreements have sometimes changed because of differing state opinions about what qualifies as "sufficient" training, physical class attendance and range quals. Want them to do it all in some one-shot deal for fed level legislation? I'd not be surprised if it didn't end up more restrictive, overall, than less restrictive overall.

    Careful what you wish for ... because it probably won't be what everyone expects. :uhoh:

    Probably hear no shortage of things from politicians like, "This is common sense legislation", "It's not perfect, but it's the best we could get passed", etc, etc.
     
  4. Sunray

    Sunray Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    11,573
    Location:
    London, Ont.
    Even if a president could pass such a law, you get to comply with State and sometimes municipal firearms laws that can and do ignore Federal laws and your Constitution.
     
  5. ljnowell

    ljnowell Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    6,200
    Location:
    The Peoples Republic of IL

    And this lack of understanding is why it will never pass.
     
  6. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Here's what people don't understand. The feds will NEVER simply recognize a right under the Constitution. Those days are over. Anything they pass will regulate CCW to the point that it will be initially "granted" then rescinded and abolished. The 2A is not a right granted by whim of government. It is a statement that the fed. govt. cannot abrogate it.

    However, they've already done that several times. Do you really want their fingers further into the pie?

    What we have is definitely not perfect. But there is real danger in making it more imperfect by asking for federal involvement.
     
  7. ljnowell

    ljnowell Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    6,200
    Location:
    The Peoples Republic of IL

    What makes you think that not passing a law in our favor will prevent them from doing bad things in the future?

    That is the failure in that philosophy. If they have the votes and want to strip our rights they will do it. They aren't going to stop and say "oh, we didn't pass reciprocity, we can't do this!"
     
  8. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Think it through. You are proposing congress to pass a law setting precedent for federal regulation of a law that has previously been a state issue. I challenge you to find an example that has not resulted in that right being eroded. Here's a hint: You won't find one.

    I agree that they have done "bad things" even without a national CCW reciprocity law. But having one sets the ball completely in the federal court (pun and double meaning intended) with no recourse allowed to the states. A law stating that states must issue, without regulation of requirement or reciprocity, would be a step in the right direction. But federal requlation of training or cost requirement and required reciprocity allows far too much control to a government that has shown a general animus toward the 2A.
     
  9. ljnowell

    ljnowell Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    6,200
    Location:
    The Peoples Republic of IL

    Think it through, they can do whatever they want.

    The thought process of "if we don't allow a national reciprocity bill they can't mess with CCW later" is so far beyond flawed that it isn't even funny.
     
  10. Don357

    Don357 Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    535
    Location:
    Semmes Alabama
    I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.:rolleyes: Our next President will unfortunately be Hillary Clinton in an Obama/Sadam Hussein style election, the same way Obama was re-elected. Therefore any hope of national concealed carry reciprocity is a dream that will probably never be realized. AND, we will suffer an even greater threat to our 2nd Amendment rights.



    PROMOTE THE VOTE!!!
     
  11. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    UH huh.....sound like a young person who never had a Civics class

    Those of us who grew up decades ago have seen the destruction on rights at the National level since LBJ's Great Society..
    NO THANKS!
     
  12. BSA1

    BSA1 member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    It is enlightening and frankly discouraging that some gun owners are so willing to subject their right to bear and keep arms to the whim of a overly expansive Federal Government while nullifying the very successful use of the 10th Amendment.
     
  13. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    UH huh.....sound like a young person who never had a Civics class
    Those of us who grew up decades ago have seen the destruction on rights at the National level since LBJ's Great Society..
    NO THANKS!

    It is enlightening and frankly discouraging that some gun owners are so willing to subject their right to bear and keep arms to the whim of a overly expansive Federal Government while nullifying the very successful use of the 10th Amendment.

    These two posts say it all.
     
  14. Handloader109

    Handloader109 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    The short of it is he could if sent to him, but he won't
     
  15. hatt

    hatt member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    558
    I still do not understand this fascination with national CCW. Sure it might be a little better for folk behind the curtain but everyone else will take a beating. You guys just need to move. I'm not trading my rights for yours.
     
  16. we are not amused

    we are not amused Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    Smallvile, Kansas
    I am rather disappointed by the number of gun owners who support the anti-gun position.

    People, get a clue! Quit supporting the gun banners!
     
  17. Tirod

    Tirod Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    5,117
    Location:
    SW MO
    First, the President doesn't make anything pass. It's done in Congress. He just accepts or rejects the bill, and even then, he can be overridden.

    Presidents don't have the lawmaking power many give them. And they know it - which is the second part of the issue.

    Presidents protect what little power they DO have, which means they keep in place all the previous administration's decisions, by and large.

    Don't think so? Consider - Did the Bush's change much of anything on the NFA or regulatory scene? Not. Did Obama get us out of GTMO, not. What they do is keep on keeping on - they don't even attempt real sweeping change.

    What they do is implement small ones - that eat away at our rights. It's bad enough what might be scheduled on this Administrations agenda in the next six months. what I know will happen is that even a new conservative President will likely DO NOTHING to rescind them.

    Any promises to the contrary are just hot air sucking up votes. And yet the public will continue to line up on their issue of choice to support whoever pleases them the most. I think about as much could be decided on what hairstyle they sport.

    As long as people keep worshipping at the icon of the Presidency, it's not going to get any better.
     
  18. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Quote:
    I am rather disappointed by the number of gun owners who support the anti-gun position.
    People, get a clue! Quit supporting the gun banners!


    It is you who needs to "get a clue". Rather than ascribing stupidity or "tinfoil hat wearing" to others, you need to do some research. Begin with the history of human government. Then the history of your own government. Then delve into post-modernism. Come back then, with an education, and share your opinion. Until then, you are making baseless accusations against your fellow gun owners, misplacing your trust in those governing you and have no grasp on the erosion our rights have seen.
     
  19. Lord Teapot

    Lord Teapot Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2010
    Messages:
    663
    Location:
    Tampa
    We simply do not want the Federal Government to usurp any more of the states powers. If the federal government can 'grant' national concealed carry, it conversely can 'withhold' concealed carry on a national scale, and that is exactly what the courts will say when they do.
     
  20. hatt

    hatt member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    558
    You really think the current folks in DC are going to pass a good bill? Post some other wonderful legislation that's come out in the last decade to support such a position.

    Concealed carry is one very bright spot pro gun folks have had. It's beyond stupid to let .fed fool with it. Never mine demand they mess with it.
     
  21. razorback2003

    razorback2003 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,231
    Look at the CCW laws that Illinois and DC now have. The people in those two places can get a license to carry but there are a whole lot of places that they can't carry. DC's license is just about worthless with all the restrictions and Illinois' license is not much better.

    The feds did not get LEOSA right in several different ways, such as magazine capacity, the fed gun free school zones act, and national park carry.

    The whole FOPA 86 that supposedly protects gun owners passing through New York and New Jersey with handguns in the trunk was written so poorly that people still get arrested for passing through those states.

    I'd say any kind of federal handgun reciprocity law would have to be written properly and I just don't see that really done.
     
  22. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    The folks above have already said enough - I cast my vote with them. Perhaps you need to reread your Civics book
     
  23. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,745
    Location:
    PDX
    Some people travel a lot for recreation, others for work. Others (like truck drivers) travel continuously to make a living.
     
  24. BLB68

    BLB68 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    WA
    I've been to 48 states, Canada, Germany, Austria and Greenland.

    Still alive.

    If you're concerned get some out of state permits. If you have to travel where there's no reciprocity, don't be stupid and you'll likely survive the trip.
     
  25. WestKentucky

    WestKentucky Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    Messages:
    11,490
    Location:
    Middle Tn
    History has shown that great, energetic, enthusiastic leaders can unite groups of people and do amazing things...like genocide. If a leader can lead his nation to disarm the populous, then systematically wipe out a race of humans, then absolutely, a simple piece of legislation is relatively easy. The problem you would run into is that there are few folks who fit the bill. The one that comes to mind is Bill Clinton who could sell ice water to Eskimos after telling them how he made millions by selling sand to the Egyptians and saltwater to the polynesians. He can sell anything, but his agenda goes the wrong way, like the majority of people with his ability.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice