National CC Reciprocity Will Not Solve the Problems

[wiscoaster]

Is there even a bill that is up for vote in Congress?

No. There are bills, but in the House they're hopelessly stuck in committee due to all committee chairs are Democrats:
One example: H.R.38 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/38/
Although even in the Senate, where committee chairs are Republicans, they're still stuck:
One example: S.69 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/69/
I'm afraid it's just such a low priority it will never see the light of day. And right now, Congress is way too concerned with other stuff to take them up, and will continue to be so until the new Congress gets sworn in next January, when the same bills will likely be reintroduced (but under different numbers).

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

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.


"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 ?

the second amendment does not apply to ANY state. It is reserved for individuals.

the constitution is there to LIMIT federal power by specifically enumerating what that power can be, and reserving any right not enumerated therein to the states. It has been trampled on and abused but that’s what it’s there for.

 

[Old Dog]

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.

No disrespect to the residents of the rest of the state outside NYC. But: your state is NOT shall-issue, and there seems rather a hodge-podge of different licenses to choose from.
Carry
New York State issues various types of handgun licenses under NY Penal Law § 400.00(2) (e.g., to have and possess in a dwelling by a householder; to have and possess in a place of business by a merchant). Not all license types allow unrestricted concealed carrying. The license must specify whether it is issued to carry on the person or possess on the premises, and if on the premises, it must specify the place where the licensee may possess the handgun. NY Penal Law § 400.00(7). An applicant for a license to carry outside the home must be required to show, in addition to the requirement for possession, that “proper cause” exists for the issuance of a carry license.

 

[daniel craig]

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.

Also, what does it mean to get a CCW? Like how is national reciprocity going to work if some states require only one brain cell and a signature but some require your 1st born and your left nut?

 

[Craig_AR]

the second amendment does not apply to ANY state. It is reserved for individuals.

There is a language distinction that must be made here. Yes. in fact, the 2nd Amendment does, indeed, apply to the states, as clarified in the 14th Amendment language:
" ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, establishes an individual right, as opposed to a collective right. That fact is the basis for your statement. And the 2nd and 1st, through the 14th, apply to the state governments, in addition to the federal government, enjoinng all of those governments from abridging those rights.

 

[Stevel]

No. There are bills, but in the House they're hopelessly stuck in committee due to all committee chairs are Democrats:

Just like supressors, they didn't pass it along in the first two years when they had both chambers.

 

[Ivy Mike]

So much for states rights I guess. I'll be the first one to admit that the extreme form of Federalism we employ in the USA has its problems, but remember that your right to firearms was not thought to be protected by the 2nd Amendment until very recently. Your state was the one who secured those rights, most of them in their constitutions. Only in the last half of the 20th century, did the idea of the 2nd Amendment shift away from its original intent, to the current (and IMHO flawed) understanding.
Basically, you're asking for trouble by overruling state laws in favor of national ones. While it might sound good, you run the risk of it swinging the other way on other issues. For example, if you happen to be a pro-life type person, a national abortion protection would effectively end your crusade for the unborn. National laws requiring services for undocumented immigrants could theoretically place hefty burdens on state finances.

 

[Stevel]

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.

Yes, but taking small gains where we can moves us in the right direction. Opponents to individual freedoms use the technique fully wherever possible. They just keep picking the low hanging fruit and now have restrictions far in excess of what was originally conceived.

 

[James Collins]

If the left wins the rights of 2nd amendment are further run jeopardy

 

[armedwalleye]

My fear is that anything that can be granted by the simple stroke of a pen can be eliminated just as readily by a differently-minded administration.

 

[Ivy Mike]

If the left wins the rights of 2nd amendment are further run jeopardy

Your state likely has its own constitutional protections that are far more specific in their intent. I live in NV.

The NV constitution says this:

Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

2.  The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

I would argue this is a considerably more specific and modern protection for the RKBA. Also, there is a totally separate section regarding the state militia and the governor's power to call out said militia. There is zero confusion about who the militia is and what their function is and how it ties into gun ownership and carry. The legislature wisely kept the two separate.

When one considers the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, I like Nevada's approach far more and the state protections are very clear. The downside to this is that other states will have different ideas on this topic and you might not be able to conceal your firearm across state lines. But this is also the biggest strength of such a system; while your rights might not be as clearly protected in a neighboring state, that state does not force its laws upon you. And its far easier to rewrite bad legislation at the state level, than at the federal level. If I could impress upon the gun rights folks anything, it would be to stop challenging laws on the basis of the 2A. Challenge them at the state level.

 

[herrwalther]

National Reciprocity would be great. I can't carry my legal firearm in states I would most likely visit like NY and NJ. Those two states and others will put up the most fight against the bill.

The less the federal government gets involved with the nitty gritty of the bill, the better. States that have high requirements for carry permits will want their standards to be the national standards, if they accept it at all. Example, high costs, range tests, fingerprinting etc. Driving tests vary from state to state, but every time I have moved I never had to retake a road test in order to drive. Marriage licenses vary from state to state, I don't want to have to get re married if I move out of state. That is how it should be with national carry.

 

[daniel craig]

So much for states rights I guess. I'll be the first one to admit that the extreme form of Federalism we employ in the USA has its problems, but remember that your right to firearms was not thought to be protected by the 2nd Amendment until very recently. Your state was the one who secured those rights, most of them in their constitutions. Only in the last half of the 20th century, did the idea of the 2nd Amendment shift away from its original intent, to the current (and IMHO flawed) understanding.
Basically, you're asking for trouble by overruling state laws in favor of national ones. While it might sound good, you run the risk of it swinging the other way on other issues. For example, if you happen to be a pro-life type person, a national abortion protection would effectively end your crusade for the unborn. National laws requiring services for undocumented immigrants could theoretically place hefty burdens on state finances.

Which is probably why this will never happen. States want the right to say no to things done in/by other states that they don’t agree with.

 

[theotherwaldo]

-A few points:

First, National Reciprocity would probably only affect states that allow concealed carry. It would probably equalize the regulations and requirements concerning concealed carry across state lines. Laws, rules and regulations within each individual state would remain under the control of that state. as long as those laws, rules and regulations stayed within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.

Second, President Trump often says things that are purely intended to yank certain people's chains... .

 

[George P]

Your state likely has its own constitutional protections that are far more specific in their intent. I live in NV.

The NV constitution says this:

Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

2.  The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

I would argue this is a considerably more specific and modern protection for the RKBA. Also, there is a totally separate section regarding the state militia and the governor's power to call out said militia. There is zero confusion about who the militia is and what their function is and how it ties into gun ownership and carry. The legislature wisely kept the two separate.

When one considers the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, I like Nevada's approach far more and the state protections are very clear. The downside to this is that other states will have different ideas on this topic and you might not be able to conceal your firearm across state lines. But this is also the biggest strength of such a system; while your rights might not be as clearly protected in a neighboring state, that state does not force its laws upon you. And its far easier to rewrite bad legislation at the state level, than at the federal level. If I could impress upon the gun rights folks anything, it would be to stop challenging laws on the basis of the 2A. Challenge them at the state level.

Except, IIRC, in Lost Wages, there are more restrictions in place that do not apply to the rest of the state (at least when I lived some years back)

 

[fastbolt]

Politicians at the federal level eventually got around to figuring out how to enact what became LEOSA. Of course, they included some restrictions, and I rather doubt that the regular citizens wishing for national reciprocity would care to have to qualify annually, if that were added to make National Reciprocity of CCW palatable like they did with LEOSA. (Careful what you wish for. )

Then again, LEOSA required some minor revisions and fine-tuning in 2014, and there's been yet another revision needed, but it's been languishing in Congress. Maybe it'll finally have all the wrinkles ironed out someday.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Except, IIRC, in Lost Wages, there are more restrictions in place that do not apply to the rest of the state (at least when I lived some years back)

Not anymore. The only one that was really left over was the handgun registration scheme in Clark County but that went away a few years ago. There is full state preemption in place other than simple stuff like safe discharge laws, not shooting in city limits, etc.
Each county still controls its own CCW permits but NV is shall issue so the rules are uniform across the state.

 

[toivo]

No disrespect to the residents of the rest of the state outside NYC. But: your state is NOT shall-issue, and there seems rather a hodge-podge of different licenses to choose from.
Carry
New York State issues various types of handgun licenses under NY Penal Law § 400.00(2) (e.g., to have and possess in a dwelling by a householder; to have and possess in a place of business by a merchant). Not all license types allow unrestricted concealed carrying. The license must specify whether it is issued to carry on the person or possess on the premises, and if on the premises, it must specify the place where the licensee may possess the handgun. NY Penal Law § 400.00(7). An applicant for a license to carry outside the home must be required to show, in addition to the requirement for possession, that “proper cause” exists for the issuance of a carry license.

Outside of NYC, it's county-by-county. Although state law gives county judges total discretion to issue or not (therefore "may issue"), many upstate counties are de facto "shall issue," and never refuse a permit to anyone who meets the criteria.

Again, in many counties outside of NYC, full-carry ("on person") is the default license. The only people that apply for "premises only" are NYC residents, who have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever getting a full-carry permit.

 

[Laggy]

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!

I’m with you. I am immediately suspicious of the government saying “I’m here to help”.

If you need concealed carry in a neighboring state, complete the steps required of that state.

 

[George P]

Agreed - has anyone ever seen the feds NOT screw something up the second they start to meddle in it? Costs quintuple, all sorts of bureaucracy, corruption and whatnot. Keep them out of States' Rights issues.

 

[Laggy]

Agreed - has anyone ever seen the feds NOT screw something up the second they start to meddle in it? Costs quintuple, all sorts of bureaucracy, corruption and whatnot. Keep them out of States' Rights issues.

Short story: if you don’t like the laws of your state, move to a state that’s more in your ballpark.

Long version: I was just on the phone with a place in Northern WA who deals in precision stocks and long range stuff. He’s moving to Montana. The weight of living under the gun laws in Washington was more than he could bear. Still staying in business.

My goal is to live with in a way that the federal government has the least possible leverage in my life. Even if the federal government was perfectly benevolent, I’d still butt heads with them. Guaranteed.

I think many individuals on the left (not the Dem platform or the extreme left) are seeing the fallout from restrictive gun laws, and low priority of gun rights. 10-day wait States are taking weeks and even months to get your gun, and public police offices that do CCW permits are the same. These offices are crunched by Covid personnel limitations. Which wouldn’t be a problem if individual gun rights were prioritized. These people want to protect their families and now they have to wait. Their votes are biting them. But it’s a great opportunity to wake up to federal government mis-management and state lawmakers reacting to issues without proper discourse, planning, honestly and transparently informing the citizenry.

Again, if you don’t like it, move to a neighboring state where these issues go away.

 

[wiscoaster]

Short story: if you don’t like the laws of your state, move to a state that’s more in your ballpark.

Shouldn't be necessary to do that. That's defaulting to the state having priority over the people. That's not the way we were set up to be governed in this country.

 

[Laggy]

P.S. I’m waiting another 2-2.5 weeks on a 10-day wait because of Covid (ie. there’s not enough employees at the police records windows). Assuming covid is still a real threat, this is another case of Safety > Liberty.

And that’s important to any argument involving a guns and any rights regarding Amendment X. Viewing government decisions should always be filtered through the constitutional lens. 10-day waiting periods to magazine restrictions, to the TSA, restrictions on protests, etc. Take your pick.

I don’t care that X is going on, or X happened even right next door. It’s not my problem. Protests shut down because of rioting. Airport restrictions because of terrorism. Gun restrictions because of mass shootings. Covid shutdowns. It’s my personal decision to take my own risks. As well as the people I interact with. And no one can truly protect one scared person, without harming the rights of another. It’s up to the individual to shield themselves.

Also, when you view through this lens, Dem or Republican, both are in gross violation. Zero functional difference.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Shouldn't be necessary to do that. That's defaulting to the state having priority over the people. That's not the way we were set up to be governed in this country.

It kind of is how we were set up to be governed. Individual rights were never really prioritized as heavily in this country. The fact that many of these human rights concepts came well after the founding of our nation, doesn't help matters. Our constitution is so difficult to change that seemingly simple changes like Women's Suffrage require radical action to achieve. We really are in pretty serious need of a modernization of our constitution. France is on its 5th since the French Revolution, which occurred shortly after ours.
But when it comes down to it, our government was written by the aristocrats of the day, with ample protections for aristocrats. Madison's opinion on the Senate is proof of that.

It shouldn't be necessary to move, but because our country is what it is, your choices are limited. If you're in New York or California, you can probably forget about Shall Issue anything. If you're in Texas or Utah, you can kiss an Assault Weapons Ban goodbye.

 

[Laggy]

Shouldn't be necessary to do that. That's defaulting to the state having priority over the people. That's not the way we were set up to be governed in this country.

No, it shouldn’t be. But if I have to have government, I’d rather have smaller ones (states) doing their thing with smaller populations. Perhaps there’s a way to have the federal government step-in, but short of a constitutional amendment regarding concealed carry, I just don’t see it. Maybe have the same simple national database check to do so, that you would for any firearm. I don’t know how you write “There shall never be a waiting period for a CCW check and fingerprints” into the constitution, but I’m all for it.

Because if you just allow everyone to conceal carry, THEN it’s a warzone.