National Reciprocity... Again? Finally?

[Craig_AR]

This is not a new topic on THR; see a quick list of earlier threads.
However, folks are salivating for this possible national law in 2025, with a newly introduced bill in the Senate.
But, if this long shot bill does become law, HandgunLaw.us will become more important than ever.
From the linked Townhall.com article:

Those who carry will still have to comply with other state regulations on firearms.
The law would not override state licensing schemes. However, it requires states to recognize permits issued in other states.

So, if the topic comes up at the range or with shooting buddies, be sure to remind them it will be essential to know the other state's gun laws before confidently carrying into that state. NY? MD? CA? CT? Those are still gong to be messy situations.

 

[PapaG]

The governor elected by the liberal majority in my state will figure out a way to opt out.

 

[Berserker]

As much as I would like it, I question if this violates states rights. We can't just pick and choose. You can saw the 2A gives me the right regardles, and I think it is a good arguement. But then you wouldn't need this law if that was true. The precedent has already been opened to needing a permit.

What I like is states passing constitutional carry, and no training, and no permit.

Forcing reprocity, could be an interesting argument.

 

[Berserker]

It is not the role of government to pass laws you like.

 

[Craig_AR]

I question if this violates states rights. We can't just pick and choose. You can saw the 2A gives me the right regardles, and I think it is a good arguement.

No, it would not go against states rights, because the Constitutionality of full reciprocity is based on the full faith and credit clause in Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution. The precedent is already well established on the analogous issues of marriage licenses and drivers licenses. That clause and the underlying principles for it were an important aspect of moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

 

[Berserker]

No, it would not go against states rights, because the Constitutionality of full reciprocity is based on the full faith and credit clause in Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution. The precedent is already well established on the analogous issues of marriage licenses and drivers licenses. That clause and the underlying principles for it were an important aspect of moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

Not constitional scholar, but you don't need to be on a forum. Your posts backs up reprocity. We have already said you need a permit, so you have to against that precedent. I am not disagreeing 2A gives me the right to carry a gun, but the reality is we need a permit.

So to me you are going backwards by saying you need a national permit. If you don't need a permit, then you don't a national permit.

 

[Berserker]

In WI it cost $50 and you can get your permit if you took hunter safety. I discussed with someone said it is wrong and they would not pay $50, cause 2A. Not disagreeing with them, but I live in the real world. They said just don't get caught. Myself I was in a car accident and woke up in a hospital with all my belongs in a bag, not a far stretched scenario for anyone.

You have to live in the real world. And again, the role of government is not to pass laws you like.

 

[JERRY]

If they can make the verification of a valid ccw license instantaneous, such as with a driver's license, then there should be no roadblock to this per the u.s. constitution.

 

[vito]

I live in the Midwest, and legally carry a firearm almost every day and almost everywhere that I go. I have family in the NYC area that I almost never visit since the death of my mother a few years ago because of the restrictive gun laws there. When I would go to NY, I would normally drive, but if I have a gun with me then I become a potential felon when I cross over from PA into NJ and on to NY. So my choice has been to either take my chances, or make the whole trip unarmed. Instead, I just tell my brother and sister that if they want to see me they need to come to me rather than expect me to continue to come to them. National reciprocity would not stop states like NY from making it difficult and inconvenient to travel there while armed, but at least I would be avoiding commiting a felony just by having a firearm in my vehicle when I go to or through that state.

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

As much as I would like it, I question if this violates states rights. We can't just pick and choose.

Some years back, a gay "married" couple wanted to get a divorce in Oklahoma.
It went to the Okla Supreme, and the decision was that they could not get divorced, because Okla did not (then) recognize gay "marriage".
Then SCOTUS jumped in, and declared that the various States MUST recognize Marriage Certificates from other Staes, because of the '...full faith and credit...' clause.

Seems to me a short jump to concealed carry.

It is not the role of government to pass laws you like.

Actually, yes it is. How do you think laws get proposed/voted upon?

 

[Berserker]

Some years back, a gay "married" couple wanted to get a divorce in Oklahoma.
It went to the Okla Supreme, and the decision was that they could not get divorced, because Okla did not (then) recognize gay "marriage".
Then SCOTUS jumped in, and declared that the various States MUST recognize Marriage Certificates from other Staes, because of the '...full faith and credit...' clause.

Seems to me a short jump to concealed carry.

Actually, yes it is. How do you think laws get proposed/voted upon?

Again, you are proving my arguement that you cannot do national permit. Because each state issues their own marriage licenses, just like driving. So each state must issue their carry permit. This may back up what i said about having to honor other states permits.

And no the role of government, unless you are liberal, is not to pass laws you like. It is interpreet the law and constition.

One problem we have in this country, is people wanting to pass laws to make them feel good. it is why we have liberal judges trying to write laws. It is not the role of judge to write laws.

 

[Berserker]

If states had to honor other states permits, would that mean if in your state you did not need a permit, you could not carry in other states?

 

[Spats McGee]

No, it would not go against states rights, because the Constitutionality of full reciprocity is based on the full faith and credit clause in Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution. The precedent is already well established on the analogous issues of marriage licenses and drivers licenses. That clause and the underlying principles for it were an important aspect of moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

IMHO, marriage licenses & driver licenses are a poor analogy. Marriage dates back to time immemorial, so there are all kinds of common law principles that could attach. Driving does not; it’s a fairly recent development.

Marriage licenses are recognized across the 50 states because of the FF&C clause. Driver licenses are not. DLs are recognized across the states but that’s because of the Interstate Compact on Driver Licenses.

While I like the idea of being able to carry in all 50 states, I don’t think a federal statute declaring / forcing interstate recognition of licenses is the way to go. And as much as I like the idea of an Interstate Compact on Concealed Carry Licenses, I don’t see NY/IL/CA/NJ/ETC adopting that in my lifetime.

My brain has been tied up with other matters, so I haven’t thought about this much, but I’m wondering if the feds could issue a CCL. I need to let that idea ferment.

 

[Anchorite]

My brain has been tied up with other matters, so I haven’t thought about this much, but I’m wondering if the feds could issue a CCL. I need to let that idea ferment.

Ditto

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

And no the role of government, unless you are liberal, is not to pass laws you like. It is interpreet the law and constition

The House of Reps is not part of Government? The Senate is not part of Government?

They pass laws, that is their raison d'etre. And, they pass laws that somebody wants, so why not the laws I want?

Now, had you stated that the role of the Judiciary is to interpret laws and the Constitution, I would agree.

 

[Berserker]

The House of Reps is not part of Government? The Senate is not part of Government?

But they should not be used to pass laws that make us feel good. They should follow the constition, I am not a liberal.

I think gay marriage is an example of federal over reach because it made people feel good.

I don't support a national permit, even though I think 2A grants this, I do think national reprocity can be debated. To do so, would you need all states to have similar requirements to get a permit? I suspect it is that way with drivers licenses.

Could a state have to permits, or one permit that is support strict, which would then force other states to honor it? But I also don't want to give up permit less carry if the state wants it. And I don't want to give up that all I have done is taken hunter safety. But if my state wants to have a second tier to meet national standards, I think that is good discussion.


Sadly the 10th amendments is unknown to most people.

 

[Berserker]

Liberals want laws passed that make them feel good. Many people don't realize how liberal they are. They think because they like guns, they are not a liberal.

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

Liberals want laws passed that make them feel good. Many people don't realize how liberal they are. They think because they like guns, they are not a liberal.

I see, sir, that I cannot argue against your type of logic.

Therefore, I leave the field to you.

 

[Styx]

I support states rights. Each state has a set of rules and requirements that their residents must pass before being issued a carry license. That's their right as a state. The same is true when it comes to the issuance of medicals, cosmetology, security, electrical, contractors, etc. license. It's going to be a problem if New York has stricter requirements than Utah, but Utahns are allowed to carry in New York while natives cannot. Then there will be backlash the very second that someone who would not have qualified for a New York permit commits a high profile crime in New York with an Utah permit.

The only way to solve this problem would be if all states agree upon a set standard or if the federal government sets the standard that all states will follow. That in lies the problem and opens Pandora's box, to which the antigun side will create restrictive nationwide standards. Currently, if DC or NYC makes it too difficult/restrictive to get a carry license, one could move to a less restrictive state.

I think the better solution would be a ruling by SCOTUS that all states MUST either issue an out-of-state carry permit or have reciprocity. In my opinion, and for example, I believe it's unconditional for United States citizens who live in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia to not be able to exercise their constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights to bear arms in any way, shape, or form in the state of New York. That restricts approximately 315 million Americans from being able to carry in the state. It's really a slam dunk easy case to win on the federal level. There's less risk of carry rights being centralized or federalized. States still reserve the right to have reciprocity with states who's permitting scheme aligns with there own and/or to allow other to apply for an non-resident carry permit. This just seems like the simplest less problematic approach at least as a starting point.

 

[AlexanderA]

National reciprocity sounds simple, but it's not. Lots of problems when it comes to implementation. Plus, the gun community itself is not united in support. So, I doubt that it will make much headway.

The growing number of "constitutional carry" states, combined with state-by-state reciprocity, means that you will soon be able to travel throughout the bulk of the country with a concealed gun. The only exceptions will be a handful -- the "usual suspects" -- of "no-go" states. And those would be the very ones that would drag their feet on national reciprocity if it were enacted, thereby negating it.

Whether we get national reciprocity, or don't get it, ultimately won't make much practical difference. Is it worth spending political capital on this?

 

[Styx]

National reciprocity sounds simple, but it's not. Lots of problems when it comes to implementation. Plus, the gun community itself is not united in support. So, I doubt that it will make much headway.

The growing number of "constitutional carry" states, combined with state-by-state reciprocity, means that you will soon be able to travel throughout the bulk of the country with a concealed gun. The only exceptions will be a handful -- the "usual suspects" -- of "no-go" states. And those would be the very ones that would drag their feet on national reciprocity if it were enacted, thereby negating it.

Whether we get national reciprocity, or don't get it, ultimately won't make much practical difference. Is it worth spending political capital on this?

1. May Issue is gone.
2. New York are issuing permits.
3. DC and Maryland are issuing non resident permits.
4. 29 states in total have some form of permitless carry.
5. More people are buying firearms and are carrying outside of the home than ever before in history.
6. More people have carry permits than ever before in history.

Nothing good usually happens when the federal government gets involved. We've been moving in the right direction without federal intervention. We need to just let nature to continue to take it's course by leaving well enough alone. With more and more women, minorities, Democrats, and Americans in general buying firearms and the media constantly fearmongering, the more Americans will start to support gun rights. More of them will want to carry firearms for self defense or at least will become indifferent vs antigun.

 

[Berserker]

Maybe states have two tier permit. Constitional carry. or easy permit to get, and then one that met the strictess guidelines to meet NY and IL. Then I think you could say, a person has met all of that states requirment and should be able to carry.

 

[CapnMac]

but I’m wondering if the feds could issue a CCL

That prospect does not fill me with warm & fuzzies. What the government grants, the government can take away. The fedgov is not reliable in RKBA matters, if better of late.

There's likely no way to resolve the widely varying State requirements for carry permits. There's a reason you need a website to cope with reciprocity even among the 'free' States.

For my, very lay, 2¢, we only need examine FOPA and how uniformly it has been applied (and blatantly infringed by the several 'usual suspects' States).

So, the Senate Bill must needs either embrace a minimum acceptable standard, or a maximum one for uniformity across all the States (let's face it, anything less than 100% uniformity would be basically be no different than the status quo ante, other than the millions of tax dollars such a plan would require).
There's probably no good way to reconcile the laws of NY, MA, CT, IL, CA, WA with NC, SC, AZ, OH and the like.

If there is a good to the Senate bill it is in keeping the foes of RKBA busy preventing this legislation from going forward, rather than scheming to make things worse.

 

[horsey300]

If states had to honor other states permits, would that mean if in your state you did not need a permit, you could not carry in other states?

Wyoming is willing to issue permits for those who wish to conceal in any state willing to reciprocate but for residents, within state borders,I can't remember when wy wasn't "constitutional carry".

 

[Berserker]

Wyoming is willing to issue permits for those who wish to conceal in any state willing to reciprocate but for residents, within state borders,I can't remember when wy wasn't "constitutional carry".

Wow it passed less than 4 years ago, and you can't remember.