National Reciprocity... Again? Finally?

Supreme Court's ruling could be used by the President in an Executive Order to declare that all states must recognize the carry licenses of any resident of any of the other 49 states.

I have no doubts Trump is going to issue that EO on Day 1 and it will be challenged up to SCOTUS and upheld.
Sorry, it does not work that way. In spite of the abuse of EOs by two recent presidents, EOs are not laws. They are only instructions to the Executive Branch departments and agencies on how to carry out their legal authorities. An EO cannot mandate a state to do anything. In our gun world, Biden issued EOs causing the ATF to update regulations to make it harder to buy or own certain gun-related items. Trump issued an EO causing ATF to change its long standing position on bump stocks. Once challenged, those regulations failed in court.

A national law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, might result in national reciprocity. However, it is guaranteed to be challenged by a number of states, and likely eventually reach the Supreme Court. I think it could be upheld. @Spats McGee has expressed some doubts on such a law.
Either way, this is going to be a long and messy process.
 
Last edited:
Since the Supreme Court ruled in Bruen that all states shall issues carry licenses as denying them with proper cause is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection, I think there is legal framework for National Reciprocity. IMO, just because one state requires its residents to go thru live fire or psychological testing is meaningless as another state doesn't, so for the former state to deny the citizen of the latter state to carry would violate the Supremacy Clause and while Congress has not passed any law regarding National Reciprocity, the Supreme Court's ruling could be used by the President in an Executive Order to declare that all states must recognize the carry licenses of any resident of any of the other 49 states.

I have no doubts Trump is going to issue that EO on Day 1 and it will be challenged up to SCOTUS and upheld.
:rofl:

No, he will not issue an EO for national reciprocity on day one. He literally can't. Printz v. US reaffirmed the 10th Amendment, states can't be forced by the feds to do certain things. Additionally, Garland v. Cargill and Loper v. Raimondo have eviscerated EO (thankfully).

Lastly, I'm still waiting for the day 1 EO he promised in 2016 to repeal the ban on military service personnel from private carry on post/base. That's an actual EO he can issue since as commander-in-chief, that is an official order. Pres. G.H.W. Bush banned the private carry of firearms on post/base back in 1992. Pres. Trump can issue a new EO repealing Bush's EO.

He never did it during his first term in office, even though he campaigned heavily and promised it.
 
I travel to Minneaota, through either Iowa or South Dakota a few times a year. South Dakota and Iowa are the only two states I regularly travel through that would accept a Nebraska CCW permit. Minnesota, does not due to their training requirements. So if I'm going to Minnesota, I'd have to leave my firearm at home as to not cause problems. But the other two states, would probably have zero issue.

As much as I hate to say this, there would probably have to be a standardization to allow it across the states, that might be what would get the bill passed without major hangups. Unless a National Reciprocity has it so no additional training is required beyond your home state requirements. I could see how this could get very interesting in court though.
 
Sorry, it does not work that way. In spite of the abuse of EOs by two recent presidents, EOs are not laws. They are only instructions to the Executive Branch departments and agencies on how to carry out their legal authorities. An EO cannot mandate a state to do anything. In our gun world, Biden issued EOs causing the ATF to update regulations to make it harder to buy or own certain gun-related items. Trump issued an EO causing ATF to change its long standing position on bump stocks. Once challenged, those regulations failed in court.

A national law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, might result in national reciprocity. However, it is guaranteed to be challenged by a number of states, and likely eventually reach the Supreme Court. I think it could be upheld. @Spats McGee has expressed some doubts on such a law.
Either way, this is going to be a long and messy process.

I travel to Minneaota, through either Iowa or South Dakota a few times a year. South Dakota and Iowa are the only two states I regularly travel through that would accept a Nebraska CCW permit. Minnesota, does not due to their training requirements. So if I'm going to Minnesota, I'd have to leave my firearm at home as to not cause problems. But the other two states, would probably have zero issue.

As much as I hate to say this, there would probably have to be a standardization to allow it across the states, that might be what would get the bill passed without major hangups. Unless a National Reciprocity has it so no additional training is required beyond your home state requirements. I could see how this could get very interesting in court though.
There is already precedence for national carry.

The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act.

The only requirements for LEOSA are that you must be either actively sworn with arrest powers and carry a gun, or you've done 10 or more years and separated from the agency on good standing and were issued a photographic ID from said agency.

You must qualify once a year per your state's standards of training. If your state doesn't have a statewide standard, then it is up to the agency/instructor.

Hawaii for example tried to say no to LEOSA as have a few other places like the USVI. They've also tried to restrict it too.

Federal courts told them to pound sand.

National Reciprocity is on solid ground.

The wording is simple. If you meet the criteria to carry in your home states, you can carry in others.

If Florida for example doesn't require a permit, then your driver's license is enough. If New York makes you get a permit and the requirements are that you have to give a stool sample and your left pinky toe, you can still carry in other states with the New York permit.

The legislation says that New York can't block a Floridian from carrying in New York.

New York already tried that with LEOSA. A USCG service member was carrying in New York, the state charged him with carrying without a permit. The courts told New York to give the guy his gun back and go fly a kite. Since the service member was covered under LEOSA.
 
Since the Supreme Court ruled in Bruen that all states shall issues carry licenses as denying them with proper cause is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection, I think there is legal framework for National Reciprocity. IMO, just because one state requires its residents to go thru live fire or psychological testing is meaningless as another state doesn't, so for the former state to deny the citizen of the latter state to carry would violate the Supremacy Clause and while Congress has not passed any law regarding National Reciprocity, the Supreme Court's ruling could be used by the President in an Executive Order to declare that all states must recognize the carry licenses of any resident of any of the other 49 states.

I have no doubts Trump is going to issue that EO on Day 1 and it will be challenged up to SCOTUS and upheld.
:rofl:
 
There is already precedence for national carry.

The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act.

The only requirements for LEOSA are that you must be either actively sworn with arrest powers and carry a gun, or you've done 10 or more years and separated from the agency on good standing and were issued a photographic ID from said agency.

You must qualify once a year per your state's standards of training. If your state doesn't have a statewide standard, then it is up to the agency/instructor.

Hawaii for example tried to say no to LEOSA as have a few other places like the USVI. They've also tried to restrict it too.

Federal courts told them to pound sand.

National Reciprocity is on solid ground.

The wording is simple. If you meet the criteria to carry in your home states, you can carry in others.

If Florida for example doesn't require a permit, then your driver's license is enough. If New York makes you get a permit and the requirements are that you have to give a stool sample and your left pinky toe, you can still carry in other states with the New York permit.

The legislation says that New York can't block a Floridian from carrying in New York.

New York already tried that with LEOSA. A USCG service member was carrying in New York, the state charged him with carrying without a permit. The courts told New York to give the guy his gun back and go fly a kite. Since the service member was covered under LEOSA.
That's like the biggest caveat that would not apply to like 99% of firearms owners.
 
IL does not currently have nonresident permits. That's what I believe is unconstitutional and would be the easiest low-hanging fruit nationwide change we could most quickly achieve. It would be easier, safer, and more simple than trying to ram the pipedream national reciprocity bill through. Even if national reciprocity passed, there would be several years of litigation that immediately followed then retaliatory new protected places. I don't believe states like IL, NYC, MD, and HI would put up as much of a fight against being forced to issue their licenses to out-of-towners just as long as everyone is still following their licensing scheme.

I've never been to and never plan on going to IL. The same goes for CA. I haven't been back to my home state of NY since right after 9/11. Especially with everything that has been happening in NY in general and with the illegals, I'm not going back unarmed either.
I used to- and will soon have to resume- extensive travel for work. I maintain three permits as it is. I can't imagine how it would be reasonable to expect someone to travel to 7 states to take 7 different classes and pay 7 different fees to exercise a right that's enumerated in the United States Constitution. What other right in the Bill of Rights is treated this way?
 
But it does apply to all 50 states. And it applies no matter what the individual states' training requirements are.
But that only applies to LEO, not the average person. But I guess I can see what you mean, use it as the template for the training requirements to allow 50 state reciprocity.
 
I used to- and will soon have to resume- extensive travel for work. I maintain three permits as it is. I can't imagine how it would be reasonable to expect someone to travel to 7 states to take 7 different classes and pay 7 different fees to exercise a right that's enumerated in the United States Constitution. What other right in the Bill of Rights is treated this way?
Well that's reality. Firearms have their own unique set of pros, cons, issues, case law, and history that don't apply to other rights. Expecting them to EVER be treated 100% equally in the real world isn't going to result in anything other than disappointment.

Yes, if you want to carry in other states, those states must have a reciprocity agreement with your current permits or you must follow the steps to be licenced in the states you want to carry in.
 
But it does apply to all 50 states. And it applies no matter what the individual states' training requirements are.
Yes, and there's a centralized set of rules, restrictions, and hurdles that all LEOs must meet to qualify to carry in all 50 states. The problem with applying the same precedent to civilians is it takes rights away from states, gives it to the federal government, and then the federal government will have power to make the rules. The people who are making the restrictions/requirements are more friendly to law enforcement because law enforcement is part of the government, e.i, they're on the same side as the other branches of government. They aren't going to be as conservative with the requirements when it comes to civilians.
 
Yes, and there's a centralized set of rules, restrictions, and hurdles that all LEOs must meet to qualify to carry in all 50 states. The problem with applying the same precedent to civilians is it takes rights away from states, gives it to the federal government, and then the federal government will have power to make the rules. The people who are making the restrictions/requirements are more friendly to law enforcement because law enforcement is part of the government, e.i, they're on the same side as the other branches of government. They aren't going to be as conservative with the requirements when it comes to civilians.
Sure, but the main requirement is that they qualify under their state's regulations. Politically feasible? Who knows?

But the idea that states can't be forced to accept other state's qualifications? It's been done before.

Well that's reality. Firearms have their own unique set of pros, cons, issues, case law, and history that don't apply to other rights. Expecting them to EVER be treated 100% equally in the real world isn't going to result in anything other than disappointment.
If we all just sat back and accepted today's reality, nothing would change.
 
New York already tried that with LEOSA. A USCG service member was carrying in New York, the state charged him with carrying without a permit. The courts told New York to give the guy his gun back and go fly a kite. Since the service member was covered under LEOSA.
Two aspects to remember.
1. LEOSA is a law, not an Executive Order.
2. The US Coast Guard is the only uniformed / mliitary service that is also a law enforcement organization. Thus USCG members qualify under LEOSA.
 
Two aspects to remember.
1. LEOSA is a law, not an Executive Order.
2. The US Coast Guard is the only uniformed / mliitary service that is also a law enforcement organization. Thus USCG members qualify under LEOSA.
Numerous personnel across the DoD is covered under LEOSA. USN MAs, Army MPs, USAF SFs, some intelligence officers, etc...

And yes, I'm well aware that LEOSA is not an EO. I mentioned LEOSA since it already sets precedence on how federal law is superceding state law regarding carrying.
 
But that only applies to LEO, not the average person. But I guess I can see what you mean, use it as the template for the training requirements to allow 50 state reciprocity.
It is simply an example of how the feds can tell the states to go fly a kite. And the end goal is no need to a national training requirements and the current legislation doesn't have it.
 
Sure, but the main requirement is that they qualify under their state's regulations. Politically feasible? Who knows?

But the idea that states can't be forced to accept other state's qualifications? It's been done before.


If we all just sat back and accepted today's reality, nothing would change.
Correct, states have different requirements for what constitutes an LEO. Prior to LEOSA, states did their own thing. And states have tried to not abide by it and the federal courts told those states to shove it.

In the end, an example of a carry law already exists.
 
No, but the role of the government is to protect the rights and liberties of the individual.
I agree. You can make a separate argument the 2A grants us the right to carry anywhere. But that really has nothing to do with state reciprosity. And that ship has sailed.

But those are two different issues.
 
As an historical point, when HR 218 was proposed, IIRC, it had reciprocity but it wouldn't pass Congress with that in it. So the LEO organization asked the gun world to lobby for it anyway and swore they would later support reciprocity - and that DID NOT happen. At the time, some in the gun world thought giving LEOs privileges not granted to the everyday person was not a good idea.
 
As an historical point, when HR 218 was proposed, IIRC, it had reciprocity but it wouldn't pass Congress with that in it. So the LEO organization asked the gun world to lobby for it anyway and swore they would later support reciprocity - and that DID NOT happen. At the time, some in the gun world thought giving LEOs privileges not granted to the everyday person was not a good idea.
FOP got what it wanted, to hell with the people that actually vests the authority into LE. FOP's attitude towards gun rights has always been "no guns for the little people."
 
No, but the role of the government is to protect the rights and liberties of the individual.

Not in any sort of real world. First and foremost, the role of the government is preservation of the republic, because without the republic, the government isn't in power to do anything for its people (for or against). Our government and legal system has proven multiple times that it is not here to protect the rights and liberties over its people. Government will cede the rights and liberties of people in the effort of self preservation.
 
Wasn't this settled by Scotus several times, just google whether the police must protect you - see the cases. The answer is that they have no responsibility to protect.
Also, if you look at the history of government, protecting the people isn't tops for many kinds of regimes. Lots of folks think government is defined as the entity with the only legal use of force except in limited SD.
 
Not in any sort of real world. First and foremost, the role of the government is preservation of the republic, because without the republic, the government isn't in power to do anything for its people (for or against). Our government and legal system has proven multiple times that it is not here to protect the rights and liberties over its people. Government will cede the rights and liberties of people in the effort of self preservation.
So, would a reciprocity law be a step towards protecting the freedoms and liberties of the individual? Because that's the bill introduced in the Senate that we are discussing. Back in the '80s were there more shall issue or constitutional carry states than today?
 
Back
Top