National CC Reciprocity Will Not Solve the Problems

[Craig_AR]

This week the President said he would sign a national concealed carry reciprocity bill if it reached his desk. That sounds great, but a little thought leads to the conclusion that such a law will have only marginal impact until several more legal changes take place.

Comparing state-to-state current laws on restrictions regarding concealed carry we see numerous significant variations. Where is carry allowed and not allowed? Is there a two-tier carry permit program, with greater privileges for an enhanced permit than a regular one? Can public businesses ban carry by policy? If so is there required signage? If so, are there specific requirements for the signage? Can businesses ban carry in their parking lots as well as their buildings? If a business meets the legal requirements to ban by policy is violation of that ban a criminal offense or a potential civil trespass situation? Must legally carrying individuals notify LEOs of their permit or if carrying at the time of contact? Under what circumstances must that notification take place? Can local governments below state level impose additional legal restrictions on carry?

My take on all the above is that we will not be out of the woods until we have not only national reciprocity of permits (or even better, Constitutional Carry), but also a National Preemption Law that states no state or local government may enact or enforce any local restrictions on firearm ownership and carry beyond what is in Federal Law.

Moderators, please move this to Legal if that is a more appropriate location fot the thread.

 

[Hokie_PhD]

It’s a start. Right now I can’t carry in DC or Maryland where I need it more than in Va.

But even with national conceal carry if the police and courts are against us it’s rough.

that said, each step in the right direction is progress and a big loss to the ground we’ve lost to our enemies.

 

[WheelGunMan]

It’s a start. Right now I can’t carry in DC or Maryland where I need it more than in Va.

But even with national conceal carry if the police and courts are against us it’s rough.

that said, each step in the right direction is progress and a big loss to the ground we’ve lost to our enemies.

Spot on!

 

[wiscoaster]

"National Preemption Law" -- yeah, absolutely, BUT only so long as the Federal government recognizes and respects its limits as outlined in the Constitution.

But, nevertheless, good points made by OP.

 

[buck460XVR]

IMHO, what national reciprocity would do is make your CWC license legal in all states. One would still have to abide by state and local laws that relate to CWC, especially those concerning the consumption of alcohol and carrying within Government buildings/ schools, etc. One also would still have to respect the wishes of business and private property owners as to no CWC on their premises. States could still nullify Federal Firearm laws as some have done in the past.

 

[DocRock]

Giving the feds jurisdiction over concealed carry only simplifies the process by which the Marxists incrementally outlaw it. At the federal leve, the Hearing Protection Act should be a priority.

 

[CapnMac]

This week the President said he would sign a national concealed carry reciprocity bill if it reached his desk.

Which is actually just the latest in a serious of statements made to make Congress look bad (not exactly a difficult task) for not sending "clean" bills.

We probably ought not read too much into which thing is being asserted that Congress is ignoring.

"We" already know that the greatest weakness of a National Carry bill is that what is granted can be taken away. Along with the implausibility of creating National Carry that levels the differences between, say, CA, MA, NY and, oh, MY, WY, etc.
Ok, it might end the stupidity of how OR really honors their own permits, and ignores the rest of the nation, and WA has reciprocity all over. Key word is "might."
There's a further question of would such a National Bill stop certain FOID states from randomly arresting out-of-state people in complete disregard for laws?

 

[RETG]

I would not worry about the particulars of the law since the house will never pass such a bill! Not with its current makeup. And do not consider it a great idea to put something like this under Federal control; as someone who retired from Federal service that scares the **** out of me, and should scare it out of you too!

 

[wiscoaster]

"Jurisdiction" and "mandate" aren't one and the same thing. A Federal law's mandate for states to recognize other states' carry permits is a good thing. A preemption provision to prohibit them from passing a law to not recognize them is a good thing. Federal-level jurisdiction - meaning authority, control, maintenance, regulation, compliance and enforcement - is NOT a good thing, and is NOT a necessary feature of national reciprocity.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

A federal mandate for states to comply with a desired behavior is most certainly not a good thing, if you care for states rights. The tenth has mostly been given away and superceded by federal mandates as well as jurisdiction. If the feds think they can mandate something rest assured there is a basis for support in jurisdiction. Jurisdiction that the federal government will usurp for itself. After all the people will demand the mandate, and the government will be compelled to enforce it if the people make a law requiring it.

then again, my view on national reciprocity is pretty unpopular among those who seek it. Please disregard at your convenience.

 

[GEM]

As you probably know Sen. Cornyn proposed one when Trump came into office. It went nowhere as Mitch and Ryan had no interest in progun bills. Such bills are just political PR for the proposer, including Trump.

As far as the issue - there are variants of how this done. Simply saying that each state must treat an outside permit (held by someone from that state - so no third party) as if it were issued by the state, would be the simplest. However, some governors from restricted states said they move to abolish concealed carry in their state if reciprocity was passed.

Having each mandated to have an easy shall issue and then reciprocity might work. The first part would have to come from a SCOTUS decision but Roberts blocked those carry cases. Will they take it up again if Barrett makes it? Who knows? It will be years before a case comes to them again and they take it up.

So don't get excited - it's a nonstarter and just a crass political ploy to make gun fans all hot and bothered.

The Republicans had an opportunity to move national reciprocity — as well as de-regulation of suppressors — when they held both houses after Trump’s election in 2016. They were scheduled to hold hearings on the Hearing Protection Act when James Hodgkinson opened fire on GOP legislators during a baseball practice in 2017. The hearing was cancelled and Republicans lost the House in 201.

.... And they they’ve have to find the spine to move a bill like that through the legislative process.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/w...ver-get-to-a-reelected-president-trumps-desk/

 

[wiscoaster]

A federal mandate for states to comply with a desired behavior is most certainly not a good thing, if you care for states rights. .

Well, OK, granted not a "good" thing in an absolute sense, but certainly better than jurisdiction. Federal government sets all kinds of mandates for all kinds of things they want implemented and then gives the states jurisdiction over implementation, regulation, compliance, enforcement, etc. Some things need some sort of uniformity of application when you cross a state line; such is not now the case wrt firearms and creates all kinds of problems for otherwise law abiding people. Like the person from another state who was arrested for violating a NY firearm law when their luggage was searched at a NY area airport and an empty magazine was found.

 

[Speedo66]

In the unlikely event a bill like this ever passed, probably 20 or more state attorneys general would fight this for years in Federal courts.

 

[film495]

You have a right to carry. In NH, the only reason for me to get a permit, would be to be able to carry in states that have reciprocity with NH. However, it is my view requiring a permit is a violation of your constitutional rights, and the supreme court should rule requiring a permit - to excercise a constitutional right, is not legal.

Do you need a permit - to have your life?

 

[CDW4ME]

Even if it didn't solve problems, if anti-gunners don't like it, then it is a win.

 

[George P]

IMHO, what national reciprocity would do is make your CWC license legal in all states. One would still have to abide by state and local laws that relate to CWC, especially those concerning the consumption of alcohol and carrying within Government buildings/ schools, etc. One also would still have to respect the wishes of business and private property owners as to no CWC on their premises. States could still nullify Federal Firearm laws as some have done in the past.

And you can bet that states like NY NJ, MD, et al would simply pass laws making concealed carry illegal in all public places, buildings, mass transit, etc thus making your CWP useless - as it is now.

 

[Old Dog]

And you can bet that states like NY NJ, MD, et al would simply pass laws making concealed carry illegal in all public places, buildings, mass transit, etc thus making your CWP useless - as it is now.

Those states wouldn't need to pass any additional laws -- they're already in place.

 

[Ignition Override]

Wouldn't such a nation-wide bill, if passed, stimulate many local govts. and businesses to pass even Tougher laws/policies, to show that They must be In Control of the citizens?

Pass it.
Maybe tighter reactions proposed by cities etc will aggravate the population even more, "enlightening" them about politicians' and businesses' true colors, after watching the widespread ....Urban.....anarchy last spring.

 

[Old Dog]

Wouldn't such a nation-wide bill, if passed, stimulate many local govts. and businesses to pass even Tougher laws/policies, to show that They must be In Control of the citizens?

Why would it? Shall-issue is already the name of the game in most of the states, and those local governments and businesses that would infringe further on citizens' right to carry probably have mostly already done so.

 

[jdh]

United States Constitution
Article IV
Section 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

 

[Ignition Override]

Old Dog: I see what you mean.

 

[mnrivrat]

Law that applies to the carry of firearms were passed a very long time ago. Discussion of the law from state to
state seems to me to be irrelevant when the second amendment should apply to all states. Law regarding reciprocity was settled with the constitution.
"A federal mandate for states to comply with a desired behavior is most certainly not a good thing, if you care for states rights" then what is our constitution there for ?

 

[roscoe]

Is there even a bill that is up for vote in Congress? Is this just a thing someone said?

This will be decided by the US Supreme Court before a bill ever gets through Congress.

 

[toivo]

And you can bet that states like NY NJ, MD, et al would simply pass laws making concealed carry illegal in all public places, buildings, mass transit, etc thus making your CWP useless - as it is now.

Those states wouldn't need to pass any additional laws -- they're already in place.

Bit of an overstatement. Here in NY there is a short list of banned-carry places in addition to federal restrictions, but it certainly isn't "all public places, buildings, mass transit." We can even carry in bars.

 

[wiscoaster]

...when the second amendment should apply to all states...

Yes, it should, and it does, but how is it so many of them apparently haven't got the message, and what to do about it?