How does National CCW Reciprocity work with states that are Constitutional Carry?

[BSA1]

Why does anyone want to EXPAND the power and authority of the federal Government to regulate our firearm rights?

While we have lost some battles we have won far, far more. Lets keep the fight on the local and State level where our Representatives are more accountable.

 

[Sam1911]

With all due respect, Sam, I disagree. I think that it's very likely that the Distinguished Congresscritters of more populous, gun-control-leaning states would push bills that would either:
(1) Exempt their own states unless certain requirements (training minimums, FOIDs, etc.) were met. This would likely be done on the front end of the legislative process; and/or

Yeah, I certainly see that. And I imagine that nothing would ever get through to signature that DIDN'T include certain minimum requirements for this federally mandated forced reciprocity to be in effect.

That would not seem to speak at all to what other states do who already recognize other states' permits, or require none at all.

So what if MD or NJ can win a concession in this hypothetical federal law that they won't have to recognize a permit that doesn't carry minimum training standards? Why would that change whether Ohio will recognize Kentucky's permit, as it is, if they agree to, and/or always have?

(2) Push to mandate minimum standards for the issuance of CCLs at the federal level. I can see this happening either as an amendment to bills going through, or after the fact, in a "We have a federal law on CC, so we have to have national standards" kind of way.

And for a FEDERAL carry permit or license (if such a thing were somehow involved in this national carry effort) that would make sense. But federally enforced minimum standards applied within the states -- outside of how they relate to the federal reciprocity factor?

If a state doesn't want to change their laws just to meet the national reciprocity law requirements -- as many have not just to get federal highway money -- I don't see why that would be an issue.

Would there be some form of pressure to do so? Maybe even from gun folks who want their permits to be eligible to meet the federal standard? Could be. Seems like a bridge each state would have to decide how to cross on their own.

 

[Spats McGee]

Sam,
As to the first, it really shouldn't affect the fact that states can voluntarily recognize each others' licenses. That said, if some states are exempted from the law, it's not "national" reciprocity.

And for a FEDERAL carry permit or license (if such a thing were somehow involved in this national carry effort) that would make sense. But federally enforced minimum standards applied within the states -- outside of how they relate to the federal reciprocity factor?

If a state doesn't want to change their laws just to meet the national reciprocity law requirements -- as many have not just to get federal highway money -- I don't see why that would be an issue.

Would there be some form of pressure to do so? Maybe even from gun folks who want their permits to be eligible to meet the federal standard? Could be. Seems like a bridge each state would have to decide how to cross on their own.

It sounds as though you don't think highway money is that big a deal. I haven't done any research on which states have foregone federal highway money. The only example of which I'm certain is that Louisiana gave up federal highway money years ago when there was a federal push to raise the drinking age to 21. The last time I was in Louisiana, ~20 years ago, they had terrible roads.

Yes, each state would have to decide that on its own. If the CC-friendly states want their permit recognized in the more restrictive states, I can see a Hobson's choice rearing its head: (1) either let your infrastructure fall into direpair; or (2) mandate that your citizens take X hours of training before issuing them a permit.

Long story short: I don't want the feds involved in CC licensing. Period.