It's Time For National Carry Reciprocity, Says the NRA

[Basura Blanca]

So national reciprocity makes it harder for me to carry in California than I have it now?

On April 20th (?) you can put it to the test since that's when out of state permit applications will open up to members of several named pro-2A groups.

What a certain person here doesn't get, is that the state's reaction to Bruen was to lessen the usefulness of a CA ccw permit by way of declaring everything connected to the surface of the planet as a "sensitive area" (i.e no carry allowed). Bruen reined in the counties in the state which were historically no-issue-no-matter-what, in spite of the state being generally may-issue. Of the three major metro areas, San Diego, where I live, has vacillated over the decades from ok issuance, to spotty issuance, to fairly good issuance prior to Bruen. After the failed Peruta lawsuit, our then sheriff surprisingly took a hands off approach and things really began to open up. So-called "good cause" wasn't a major hurdle like it was in LA or up north where issuance was practically zero. After Bruen, things picked up even more, so much so that permit issuance is about a year wait time and that's in a department that is friendly to CCW. The reason LASD is being sued for the same thing is because they've intentionally made the process long and arduous.

But none of that matters to anyone now since SB2 was let stand (and now with Antonyuk getting the same treatment at scotus just the other day), so even if you do have a permit, the patchwork of legal carry areas is difficult to navigate. Literally. And CADOJ just sent out the memo I posted to reinforce to LE that they want to bust people for it. Does that mean Bruen was bad? No. Of course not. It was a necessary step in the process. Does it mean national reciprocity is bad? Again, no. But it means a permit holder from anywhere won't enjoy the same level of practical carry as their home state, because California has dug in its heels to derail this in any way they can.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Take you "woe is me" doom elsewhere.

If you're just trying to prove you're a jerk on the internet, mission accomplished.
You live in a state with historically good issuance and a *useful* permit. On top of that, you claim to be ex-LE so carry is bestowed upon your special class already. Meanwhile the things I'm pointing out about California where I've lived forever, the things you're being dismissive about, are front and center with actual residents who care because unlike you, it actually affects us.

And if you're going to try to take my grasp of history of this state's gun rights/laws/culture to task, maybe don't post erroneous crap like this to the forum.

 

[GEM]

Basura makes the excellent point that I've made and lived through. It was predicted that if Bruen was favorable, the state would strike back to make permits useless. That happened. The WOO-HOO WE WIN crowd cannot understand this. It's clear that Scotus will not in real time because of their procedural nonsensical customs act to enforce Bruen in real time. They don't take this or that. They remand to scold the lower court, make them do their job, etc. They probably don't have the votes to enforce Bruen clearly. OR it is a brillant plan by Alito and Thomas playing 4D chess to finally get to the golden tablet decision for gun rights.

We WOO-HOO about ATF regs, decisions about nuts with guns, red flags, what's an SBR, etc. - all really trivial. How many folks are busted on fake red flags compared to the millions who have lost the ability of useful carry while Scotus don't do dat! If they ever would. Undo some Biden stuff - sure it's good for FFLs not to be taken down for trivia - so they can sell guns you can't carry anywhere and they can't sell semis in the increasing number of ban states.

Waiting for the administration to say that they will sanction aid to states with semi and mag bans like they are doing with dropping/installing trariffs or cutting school funding. Yep, WOO-HOO we fired the person in charge of protecting kids from lead in food. Great! Can we carry in Greenland?

 

[Miami_JBT]

If you're just trying to prove you're a jerk on the internet, mission accomplished.
You live in a state with historically good issuance and a *useful* permit. On top of that, you claim to be ex-LE so carry is bestowed upon your special class already. Meanwhile the things I'm pointing out about California where I've lived forever, the things you're being dismissive about, are front and center with actual residents who care because unlike you, it actually affects us.

And if you're going to try to take my grasp of history of this state's gun rights/laws/culture to task, maybe don't post erroneous crap like this to the forum.

I just testified against a cop carve-bill.

https://x.com/RealFLGunLobby/status/1910334468495204512

So funny that you're trying to label me as someone who doesn't care about the people since I was a cop, when I actively fought against gun control as a cop.



As for California, I have spent time there and I have family there. I know the issues Californians are suffering under.

 

[Old Dog]

Here's where national reciprocity hits a brick wall at 100mph: Attention serfs, you can have your precious permit but...

My state is attempting to expand the list of "sensitive places" as well, for the second legislative session in a row.

It would appear that some states suffer more than others with regard to violent crimes in their libraries and museums... What would really tick me off, as a regular law-abiding citizen (if I still lived in California) is the prohibition in state parks and outdoor recreation areas.

In any event, it's difficult to see a path where certain states such as New York, Maryland, Colorado, Hawaii, California, Washington would ever roll back their lists of "sensitive places" in which concealed carry is proscribed. Not gonna get that toothpaste back in the tube.

 

[wayneinFL]

Basura makes the excellent point that I've made and lived through. It was predicted that if Bruen was favorable, the state would strike back to make permits useless. That happened. The WOO-HOO WE WIN crowd cannot understand this. It's clear that Scotus will not in real time because of their procedural nonsensical customs act to enforce Bruen in real time. They don't take this or that. They remand to scold the lower court, make them do their job, etc. They probably don't have the votes to enforce Bruen clearly. OR it is a brillant plan by Alito and Thomas playing 4D chess to finally get to the golden tablet decision for gun rights.

We WOO-HOO about ATF regs, decisions about nuts with guns, red flags, what's an SBR, etc. - all really trivial. How many folks are busted on fake red flags compared to the millions who have lost the ability of useful carry while Scotus don't do dat! If they ever would. Undo some Biden stuff - sure it's good for FFLs not to be taken down for trivia - so they can sell guns you can't carry anywhere and they can't sell semis in the increasing number of ban states.

Waiting for the administration to say that they will sanction aid to states with semi and mag bans like they are doing with dropping/installing trariffs or cutting school funding. Yep, WOO-HOO we fired the person in charge of protecting kids from lead in food. Great! Can we carry in Greenland?

I wouldn't see national reciprocity as a WOO-HOO win. It's a step.

I know this is hard on the residents of New York, where you've worked hard to get a permit. You have your permit, and you can carry. Why would you care if someone from outside the state can carry, especially if it impedes your right to carry?

I kinda get it. You don't want people coming there if it makes rights more restrictive just like I don't want more New Yorkers here if it makes it more restrictive.

Does that mean Bruen was bad? No. Of course not. It was a necessary step in the process. Does it mean national reciprocity is bad? Again, no. But it means a permit holder from anywhere won't enjoy the same level of practical carry as their home state, because California has dug in its heels to derail this in any way they can.

That's fair. I don't think anyone has the expectation that California or New York is going to turn into Arizona at the flip of a switch. It's just a step, but it's a necessary step.

My state is attempting to expand the list of "sensitive places" as well, for the second legislative session in a row.

It would appear that some states suffer more than others with regard to violent crimes in their libraries and museums... What would really tick me off, as a regular law-abiding citizen (if I still lived in California) is the prohibition in state parks and outdoor recreation areas.

In any event, it's difficult to see a path where certain states such as New York, Maryland, Colorado, Hawaii, California, Washington would ever roll back their lists of "sensitive places" in which concealed carry is proscribed. Not gonna get that toothpaste back in the tube.

I keep a North Dakota enhanced permit just to get reciprocity with Washington and Minnesota. I think Washington will keep restricting carry whether national rexiprocity happens or not. The antigun stuff, like the AWB, started there before Bruen, didn't it?

 

[Basura Blanca]

So funny that you're trying to label me as someone who doesn't care about the people since I was a cop, when I actively fought against gun control as a cop.

That wasn't my intent at all. I was simply pointing out the stark difference between our situations. All this hostility is coming from you, not me. You telling me and others to "give up your guns"/"go play minecraft" and "leave the forum", then pretending that the facts I bring about the carry situation here in CA are indicative of a defeatist attitude (when all they are, are just facts), is actually disappointing coming from you. Even more so if you say you understand the situation (which I don't doubt) in California.

I'm not your enemy. Your tone doesn't exactly ooze vibes of hey, let's collaborate and fight together.
As I often say here, divided we fall.

 

[Basura Blanca]

It would appear that some states suffer more than others with regard to violent crimes in their libraries and museums... What would really tick me off, as a regular law-abiding citizen (if I still lived in California) is the prohibition in state parks and outdoor recreation areas.

I live in a neighborhood that abuts one of the biggest regional parks in the city. It's nice to have all that open space, but because of SB2, it's all off limits to carry. This is an 8000 acre piece of land, so the boundary runs for miles. I used google maps to plot a walking course from my house to the grocery store, the other direction. Navigating around the school zones is one thing, but when it comes to the inclusion of parking lots (e.g. of restaurants which serve alcohol), being completely legal turns the exercise into a meandering path that goes anywhere but from point A to B. And as I said, the park landlocks me the other direction.

This is not how Bruen was intended to be interpreted.

 

[Old Dog]

The antigun stuff, like the AWB, started there before Bruen, didn't it?

Bruen was 2022, our AWB came in 2023. However, our background checks and requiring all firearm transactions to go through an FFL came in 2014 Killed a very active private sales market.

This is not how Bruen was intended to be interpreted.

Correct, and yet SCOTUS is passing up every opportunity to fix this.

 

[balin]

Getting it through the Senate will require attaching it to must pass legislation.

That's what was done during Obama's tenure. National Park Carry was attached to his must pass credit card reform legislation.

The other avenue is attaching it to a fiscal bill during reconciliation via the budget debate. That only requires a simple majority, not cloture.

If it is so simple why did they not do that during trumps first term with all the other things that were promised with reclassifying suppressors being one. National Park carry and National carry are not even close to the same level. Not all republican senators are in the position where they don't need to worry about re-election. The more times Republicans bend the rules to get things past will just Democrats to do the same when they regain power. But opinions will differ

 

[Miami_JBT]

If it is so simple why did they not do that during trumps first term with all the other things that were promised with reclassifying suppressors being one. National Park carry and National carry are not even close to the same level. Not all republican senators are in the position where they don't need to worry about re-election. The more times Republicans bend the rules to get things past will just Democrats to do the same when they regain power. But opinions will differ

I didn't say it was simple, I said those are the options. Now, Republicans have to have a spine to do it.

 

[Old Dog]

Now, Republicans have to have a spine to do it.

A Congressional representative or Senator with a spine? Isn't that like an oxymoron such as "military intelligence?"

With the razor-thin majority, likely to be lost sooner than later, and the types of people we have in Congress now (even GOP members hate other GOP members while many don't respect the President, who only pays lip service to the 2A), I just don't see this ever happening.

Speaking of spines, clearly our Chief Justice doesn't have one, and with ACB's liberal turn, we can't depend on SCOTUS for a Hail Mary miracle.

We're gonna have to fight on the state level. And we'll lose more than we win.

 

[Miami_JBT]

A Congressional representative or Senator with a spine? Isn't that like an oxymoron such as "military intelligence?"

With the razor-thin majority, likely to be lost sooner than later, and the types of people we have in Congress now (even GOP members hate other GOP members while many don't respect the President, who only pays lip service to the 2A), I just don't see this ever happening.

Speaking of spines, clearly our Chief Justice doesn't have one, and with ACB's liberal turn, we can't depend on SCOTUS for a Hail Mary miracle.

We're gonna have to fight on the state level. And we'll lose more than we win.

That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

When Democrats get into office, they wield power and use it. When Republicans get into office, they keep the seat warm for Democrats.

The fight is on the federal, state, and local level. This is a long-drawn battle much like the civil rights movement. Some states will kick and scream, refusing to advance liberty. Others will go right ahead, while others will do the bare minimum.

But as long as we keep fighting, we'll win.

 

[stillquietvoice]

You think government today operates on fairness?

Surely they don't that is why those reciprocity bills need to be attached to bills to keep govt funded

 

[balin]

I didn't say it was simple, I said those are the options. Now, Republicans have to have a spine to do it.

They only got the budget bill passed this week through the house by 1 vote as not all republicans voted for it and that was a priority for them. If it had been watered down with more amendments like national carry i would think it would have failed. . Many republicans have no interest in a national carry as it is not a concern for many as most Americans do not carry or want to carry a gun so i don't put any faith into them enacting such a thing.

 

[AlexanderA]

Once people have a gun, and they feel the need to carry, they will carry it, legally or illegally. The choke point is obtaining the gun in the first place. That's why carry permits, as an issue, is less important than possession restrictions. The antigunners understand this, and they are prepared to yield ground on carry, as long as they can make it as difficult as possible to get the guns.

By prioritizing carry (at the expense of liberalizing possession), I'm afraid that the pro-gun side is playing right into the antis' game.

 

[Elkins45]

Federalism is a funny thing. When it’s being used to force states to permit CCW the right loves it, but just a few years ago when it was used to force gay marriage the right was screaming bloody murder.

Permits to carry should be attacked under Bruin as not based on history and tradition. Normally a fight like this is incremental but Bruin gives us the framework needed to go straight for the roots of the poisonous tree. Even better we already have parties who can show harm, those being everyone who has been denied a permit for frivolous or procedural reasons.

 

[Steve51]

I voted "yes".
On most things, I am firm on state's rights. But, some things are the right of every citizen - Free Speech and the un-infringed right to bear arms are a couple that come to mind.

But, I also know our government has the uncanny ability to screw up even things that are good and wise.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Federal Reciprocity

Federalization of abortion rights under Roe v Wade, taking the issue from state to federal jurisdiction, did not work out as its proponents intended.

Federalization of right to carry for self defense, taking the issue from state to federal jurisdiction, may not work out as its proponents intend.

I remember when Michael Bloomberg's bought and paid for Virginia Attorney General announced he was revoking Virginia's recognition of Tennessee Hand Gun Carry Permits.* Previous VA and TN state administrations had worked out compatibility between the two states' laws. The new Democrat AG was going throw it all out,

At least forty states have state constitution guarantees of the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms and a majority of states have some form of right to carry outside the home for self defense. About eight states have no state constitution guarantees of RKBA and politicians of those states push for bans and prohibitions at the federal level. New York State especially believes in NO Right to Bear Arms, Hillary Clinton and Charlie Schumer have been very adamant in their campaign rhetoric. Hillary said she would amend the 2A to protect "the right of the people to keep and bear arms _while on active militia duty_ " (Justice Stevens' "five words").

___________
*Currently: "Tennessee authorizes the holders of facially valid handgun permit, firearms permit, weapons permit, or a license issued by another state according to its terms to carry a handgun only [no other firearm for defense] in the state of Tennessee." -

 

[Miami_JBT]

Federal Reciprocity

Federalization of abortion rights under Roe v Wade, taking the issue from state to federal jurisdiction, did not work out as its proponents intended.

Federalization of right to carry for self defense, taking the issue from state to federal jurisdiction, may not work out as its proponents intend.

I remember when Michael Bloomberg's bought and paid for Virginia Attorney General announced he was revoking Virginia's recognition of Tennessee Hand Gun Carry Permits.* Previous VA and TN state administrations had worked out compatibility between the two states' laws. The new Democrat AG was going throw it all out,

At least forty states have state constitution guarantees of the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms and a majority of states have some form of right to carry outside the home for self defense. About eight states have no state constitution guarantees of RKBA and politicians of those states push for bans and prohibitions at the federal level. New York State especially believes in NO Right to Bear Arms, Hillary Clinton and Charlie Schumer have been very adamant in their campaign rhetoric. Hillary said she would amend the 2A to protect "the right of the people to keep and bear arms _while on active militia duty_ " (Justice Stevens' "five words").

___________
*Currently: "Tennessee authorizes the holders of facially valid handgun permit, firearms permit, weapons permit, or a license issued by another state according to its terms to carry a handgun only [no other firearm for defense] in the state of Tennessee." -

FL in reality does not. Our Constitution carries the Jim Crow era language that the right can be restricted by the Legislature.

 

[GEM]

Folks may not remember history. When shall issue came about in TX - the antis made sure the initial law had an easy option to ban carry with Ghostbuster signs. BTW, the GOA opposed shall issue in TX, saying that all we need is the 2nd Amendment. The antis promoted bans to locales, sending them signs to put up. Thus, locale bans with have certainly surface validity (MUH Property RIGHTZ) were a specific plan to make carry useless. Same with church bans as guns insult God and/or Jesus will protect you. Those bans and signage were modified by making a ban sign the obnoxious 30.06 that few put up. HOWEVER, when OC came about, many places found that more obnoxious than CCW and they put up the new 30.07 sign banning OC and surprise added 30.06 signs that they never had before. Now there are signs banning constitutional carry folks - 30.05.

So locale bans have a long history of negative carry rights. We should not support locale bans of any sort except for technical reasons (the classic MRI BOOM!). MUH Property Rightz is BS IF you opened a business to the public. You don't have the right to take away my right of self-defense. I hate to say this but some of the Rightz folks argued for the right to racially and ethnically ban folks from open business as their RIGHTZ. If you open a business, you accept all kinds of government regulations, so your rightz on this is BS.

However, we know Scotus is useless - waiting for them to get rid of state AWBs, mag bans and locale bans - ain't gonna happen. Yeah, they will plotz around with some regs and the Trump DOJ and ATF may plotz around with braces and book keeping but the core issues and protections won't be touched.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

FL in reality does not. Our Constitution carries the Jim Crow era language that the right can be restricted by the Legislature.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3400663/watson-v-stone/

Nov. 21, 1941
Watson v. Stone
Supreme Court of Florida
Citations: 4 So. 2d 700, 148 Fla. 516, 1941 Fla. LEXIS 929

Concurrence Opinion by Judge Rivers H. Buford

"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. We have no statistics available, but it is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute. It is also a safe guess to say that not more than 5% of the men in Florida who own pistols and repeating rifles* have ever applied to the Board of County Commissioners for a permit to have the same in their possession and there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention to the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested."

* Repeating rifles (magazine fed Winchesters, Marlins, etc) were the AR-15s of the 1890s. -cnb

 

[fastbolt]

National Reciprocity?

Sure. Why not? Careful what you wish for though, especially when it empowers the federal government to get involved and exercise more control and regulatory power. Getting that genie back in the bottle isn't known for being an easy task.

Also, expect to see more states enact restrictions regarding carrying concealed firearms in public. Then, expect to see more people visiting other states to trip over something they didn't take the time and effort to learn about.

Remember how the Driver's License Compact and the Driver's License Agreement eventually came about? The states got together. They apparently don't see the overwhelming need for a CCW agreement like they did for licensed drivers to cross state lines.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Federalism is a funny thing. When it’s being used to force states to permit CCW the right loves it, but just a few years ago when it was used to force gay marriage the right was screaming bloody murder.

Echoing that fickleness, the house passed a resolution today (HR1526) to rein in federal judges' "rogue rulings". This can of course cut both ways, and calls out the same "activist judges" who sometimes make our (gun) lives better. Yet another reason to depolarize 2A rights and distance our cause from the right-leaning politicos.