National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Petition

Status
Not open for further replies.
About ANJRPC: The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is the official New Jersey affiliate of the NRA, and is New Jersey’s oldest, largest, and most effective Second Amendment advocacy organization

They may be the oldest and largest, but they haven't been very effective over the last 40-50 years or so.
 
I had them handy. See --

  • Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:

  • And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000):

Who said anything like that?
Then what are you complaining about? If the laws of anti-gun states will NOT be spread to other states, what possible objection can there be to a national recognition of concealed carry permits?
 
Then what are you complaining about? If the laws of anti-gun states will NOT be spread to other states, what possible objection can there be to a national recognition of concealed carry permits?


Your reply is not even remotely relevant to what you quoted.

Are you trying to insinuate that what Frank cited supports any of your positions?

Elaborate please.
 
Then what are you complaining about? If the laws of anti-gun states will NOT be spread to other states, what possible objection can there be to a national recognition of concealed carry permits?
Vern, I continue to be amazed at how obtuse you’re being. You don’t appear to have any idea how laws are applied and how they’re deemed Constitutional, and your posts have been an endless stream of strawman and non sequitur statements.

I (and others) keep repeating ourselves, but it’s clear from your posts that you have no understanding of why we should all be worried about a national reciprocity law. Let me try one more time to explain before I just give up.

A national reciprocity law will mean that the federal government is now directly involved in state-level concealed carry issues. That law would also be very controversial and there would be strong pushback from certain states and localities.

This means two things are likely: First, in order for a national reciprocity bill to pass, it would need votes from Democrats in the senate and from Republicans who are in areas that lean anti-gun. This means compromise. And what kind of compromise would we see? Nobody knows for sure, but I think it’s likely that we’d see further restrictions on carry that applied on the federal level.

So imagine this scenario: In order to get enough votes to pass the bill, they’d add extra national restrictions on where we can carry. Or maybe we’d need to qualify with each gun we intend to carry. Things like that are likely to be included in any national reciprocity bill that passes. That’s how legislation works: Compromise is often needed in order to pass a bill.

The second thing that would probably happen is a backlash of federal legislation after the passing of a national reciprocity bill. All of a sudden, anti-gun states and localities that restrict carry would have people carrying guns there. Many people and many politicians would look to pass reactive federal legislation as a reaction against it. So I think it’s likely we’d see follow-up federal legislation that restricts carry (or gun rights in general).

Right now, politicians from states like NY, CA, and NJ have little pressure to push for national carry restrictions since so few people can currently carry in their state. But that would certainly change if national reciprocity was enacted.
 
Vern, I continue to be amazed at how obtuse you’re being. You don’t appear to have any idea how laws are applied and how they’re deemed Constitutional, and your posts have been an endless stream of strawman and non sequitur statements.

I (and others) keep repeating ourselves, but it’s clear from your posts that you have no understanding of why we should all be worried about a national reciprocity law. Let me try one more time to explain before I just give up.

Okay -- you agree the restrictive laws of states like New Jersey will NOT be imposed on other states, or incorporated into federal law.
A national reciprocity law will mean that the federal government is now directly involved in state-level concealed carry issues. That law would also be very controversial and there would be strong pushback from certain states and localities.

So you now say the restrictive laws of states like New Jersey WILL be imposed on other states, or incorporated into federal law?
This means two things are likely: First, in order for a national reciprocity bill to pass, it would need votes from Democrats in the senate and from Republicans who are in areas that lean anti-gun. This means compromise. And what kind of compromise would we see? Nobody knows for sure, but I think it’s likely that we’d see further restrictions on carry that applied on the federal level.
And to pass restrictive gun laws in Congress votes from Republicans will be required.

How is this different from the current situation, when we have no guaranteed reciprocity?
So imagine this scenario: In order to get enough votes to pass the bill, they’d add extra national restrictions on where we can carry. Or maybe we’d need to qualify with each gun we intend to carry. Things like that are likely to be included in any national reciprocity bill that passes. That’s how legislation works: Compromise is often needed in order to pass a bill.
So we're talking about imagination here?

We can imagine anything -- but that doesn't make it real.
The second thing that would probably happen is a backlash of federal legislation after the passing of a national reciprocity bill. All of a sudden, anti-gun states and localities that restrict carry would have people carrying guns there. Many people and many politicians would look to pass reactive federal legislation as a reaction against it. So I think it’s likely we’d see follow-up federal legislation that restricts carry (or gun rights in general).
Just like the backlash that has happened in every state that has passed "shall issue" laws?
Right now, politicians from states like NY, CA, and NJ have little pressure to push for national carry restrictions since so few people can currently carry in their state. But that would certainly change if national reciprocity was enacted.
But you admit that's all just imagination?
 
Okay -- you agree the restrictive laws of states like New Jersey will NOT be imposed on other states, or incorporated into federal law.

[...]

So you now say the restrictive laws of states like New Jersey WILL be imposed on other states, or incorporated into federal law?
I don’t even know how to respond to this. This is like arguing with my four-year-old.

And to pass restrictive gun laws in Congress votes from Republicans will be required
Yes. It would be required now. But don’t forget that this Republican majority isn’t permanent. And there are probably Republicans in Congress currently who would be willing to vote for a national reciprocity bill even if it included compromise restrictions.

So we're talking about imagination here?
We’re talking about my informed opinion based on decades of observing Congressional politics.

Just like the backlash that has happened in every state that has passed "shall issue" laws?
You really have no idea how any of this works, do you? You’re talking about state-level laws. I’m talking about federal-level laws. Do you understand the difference?

Vern, along with your ignorance regarding constitutional issues and how they relate to the courts, you also appear to have zero understanding of how state-level politics compare to federal-level politics, and how the laws of each are applied. That, along with your complete inability to comprehend our various arguments, is making sure that this discussion goes nowhere. Maybe someone else will take over, because I’m done wasting my time arguing with you.
 
Last edited:
I don’t even know how to respond to this. This is like arguing with my four-year-old.
It is, but I try to be patient with you. :)
Yes. It would be required now. But don’t forget that this Republican majority isn’t permanent. And there are probably Republicans in Congress currently who would be willing to vote for a national reciprocity bill even if it included compromise restrictions.
You know what the Spartans said to Phillip II?
We’re talking about my informed opinion based on decades of observing Congressional politics.
Ah, and all along I thought we were taking about facts.
You really have no idea how any of this works, do you? You’re talking about state-level laws. I’m talking about federal-level laws. Do you understand the difference?

Vern, along with your ignorance regarding constitutional issues and how they relate to the courts, you also appear to have zero understanding of how state-level politics compare to federal-level politics, and how the laws of each are applied. That, along with your complete inability to comprehend our various arguments, is making sure that this discussion goes nowhere. Maybe someone else will take over, because I’m done wasting my time arguing with you.
Ah, because I don't agree with your convoluted arguments that predict disaster at every turn, there's something wrong with me?

Here's the bottom line -- we have made great strides in regaining our freedom, and this is the next step.[/QUOTE]
 
Agreed. With federal control comes federal regulations and restrictions.

Disagree.

Reciprocity has nothing to do with Federal regulation or restrictions.

Indeed, the states will continue to be the sole regulators with regard to the concealed carry of firearms, as the proposed legislation contains no regulatory provisions.

National reciprocity merely safeguards a citizen from being charged with the crime of carrying a concealed weapon in one state when he has a valid license issued in another state when a citizen is traveling through a state other than his state of residence or while staying a short period of time in a state other than his state of residence.

A non-resident would be subject to the firearm laws of that state should he use his gun in self-defense; and if he become a new resident of that state, he would be required to obtain a new license pursuant to the laws of his new state of residence.

Currently, those of us in states with excellent carry laws have very little interference from the federal government regarding our daily carry.

And that would remain the case should National reciprocity become law.

Again, National reciprocity concerns solely the carrying of conceal firearms, not their use; there would be no change to state laws with regard to the qualifications to obtain a carry license, and no new requirements imposed.
 
Anybody that thinks about letting the camel’s nose under the tent has probably never smelled a camel. I’m not willing to trade the gun laws of KY for those of NJ or HI in exchange for being able to carry there.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Linked below is H.R.38 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

Please cite any provision authorizing Federal regulation.

Please cite any provision mandating one state ‘trade’ its gun laws with another state.

Please cite any provision making ‘universal’ the criteria and qualifications for obtaining a conceal carry license, compelling the states to implement those criteria and qualifications, or invalidating state laws with regard to obtaining a concealed carry license.

Please cite any provision requiring the more restrictive laws of some states be applied to all the states.

Absent those citations, opposition to H.R. 38 is unwarranted and devoid of merit.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th..."search":["concealed+carry+reciprocity+act"]}
 
If you involve the Feds to implement a national reciprocity agreement, it WILL involve the Feds, they WILL insist on control, and the very anti-states WILL dictate the terms...........I live in a state that has fairly easy CCW requirements and few restrictions. I do not want my state's ability to govern things suddenly usurped by the folks in NJ, NY, CA, etc. You do NOT want that camel's nose creeping into the tent.
 
Again, National reciprocity concerns solely the carrying of conceal firearms, not their use; there would be no change to state laws with regard to the qualifications to obtain a carry license, and no new requirements imposed.
Nobody is talking about any state laws changing, we're talking about federal laws changing.

Please cite any provision mandating one state ‘trade’ its gun laws with another state.
Again, nobody on our side of the argument has said anything about states "trading" gun laws. That's not a thing.

Reciprocity has nothing to do with Federal regulation or restrictions.

Indeed, the states will continue to be the sole regulators with regard to the concealed carry of firearms, as the proposed legislation contains no regulatory provisions.
You don't appear to understand how the federal legislative process works. Bills are changed multiple times from their original version as they make their way through the House and the Senate, and then again while one or both versions are again modified to match each other.

Look how much the recent tax law changed as it made its way through the legislative process. That's how this whole thing works: Proposed legislation is changed, and compomises and concessions are made to garner enough votes for a bill to pass. If you honestly believe that HR 38 would make it though the House and Senate unchanged, you are obviously ignorant of the whole process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top