National Reciprocity bill...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am less than an expert, my out is I belong to the NRA and let them fight the fights I don't understand. It's a cop-out, I know, and you got it right Tecumseh, I don't trust the Fed's, I don't trust any Government. As for being behind enemy lines, no such thing as not being able to get out, it is a choice, sometimes one makes a hard choice for the right reasons, get your education and get the hell out.
 
Some mechanical issues with open carry

You would only need one permit if this bill was passed. No more wondering about if it is legal or not.
Click to expand...

Well, you would need only one license for CONCEALED carry. To me that's my only complaint, the bill doesn't cover someone who's visiting Minnesota and carrying on a license not recognized by Minnesota (there are currently 15 states recognized fully for both open and concealed carry), they can only conceal carry, not open carry or they would not be protected from the state law that generally prohibits carry.

It sort of sucks, however I am not too concerned. The gold star open carry states I don't need to worry about, they have no laws against open carry. The only time I really have to worry about it are the licensed open carry states and the ones that are anomalous (open carry on foot ok, carry in vehicle only with license or no full preemption).

Any discretionary licensed open carry states (Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa, Hawaii, DC, Rhode Island (AG Issue), New Jersey) are either impossible to get anyway, have no reciprocity or recognition anyway, or would just revoke your discretionary license if you open carry. It sucks, but that's the way it goes. On the other hand, the point of revoking someone's license is to threaten their ability to carry entirely, or to threaten their ability to conceal during certain social situations that may not allow open. This bill would remove that sword of Damocles that discretionary licensed open carry states have over those who are lucky enough to have licenses from them (for example, they reside in a pro-gun jurisdiction of an anti-gun state, but said pro-gun issuer doesn't like open carry and threatens to revoke your license.

Shall-issue licensed open carry states, such as Tennessee, Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Utah, either recognize all out of state licenses, or have reciprocity/limited recognition statute. GA, ND, and MN have reciprocity agreements with either Utah or Florida, so I'm good to go for open carry there if I so choose. The other states in this list already recognize all out of state licenses for both open and concealed carry (a few of the states may restrict their own residents from being able to use out of state licenses).

The anomalous ones (open carry on foot, license required for car) I can deal with by acquiring a reciprocal license (Florida's a big one) or a license from that state (Good example would be getting a NH non-resident LTCF, or getting a Florida license to cover you in Pennsylvania, or getting a Utah license to cover in Washington State).

To wit, you have to think of these bills as a "layer cake of protection". If you lose not-withstanding protection by open carrying, you're subject to the state law that you're carrying in. If you have a license recognized by the state you're open carrying in, or have one of the state's licenses, you're covered and don't need the protection.

Basically, this is to allow you to carry concealed for personal protection in those stubborn anti-gun enclaves like New York, California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maryland, DC, and Hawaii who will not bow to the constitution and allow carrying for personal protection. Concealed carry only supporters and even primary open carriers such as myself should support this. This will give the CCW-only folk what they want, and if anyone wants to open carry in multiple states, they can simply get the licenses to be able to open carry in three additional states.

Even though I strongly dislike open carry being excluded from the protection, since I'm sacrificing nothing (open carrying will be the same now as later as far as laws and licenses), if this bill passes we would gain the ability to conceal carry across the entire country in every state, and put pressure on the stubborn anti-gun enclaves to shape up. Perhaps in the process, create a few more shall-issue licensed open carry states.
 
Last edited:
The fact of the matter is that gunowners are their own worst enemy.
Click to expand...

You don't understand.

Gun owners are happiest when they lose. Losing validates their belief that the world is against them. They want to lose. They will climb over every obstacle that gets in the way of losing. They are committed to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

That is why gun owners refuse to accept small victories. Every small victory is upsetting because it becomes an obstacle to losing.

If the United States were to have a law tomorrow that allowed every gun owner to do anything he or she wanted to do, a large number of gun owners would protest that law, vote against the "congresscritters" who voted for it, denounce the president who signed it, search out the Independent candidates who had the least chance of winning any election so they could vote for those candidates, and attack the NRA for its participation in lobbying for such a law.

Nothing less than total defeat will satisfy us. It is our right, and we will fight to the death for it.
 
I WAS WRONG! IT'S NOW UP TO 63 SPONSORS, as of this evening.

Funny how a dead bill keeps picking up sponsors all the time.
 
Liberal Gun Nut: Thanks for the update.

Robert Hairless: I think that maybe your on to something. Everyone loves to have something to complain about. I could see gun owners desiring to complain about new gun control.:scrutiny: ;)
 
Robert Hairless said:
If the United States were to have a law tomorrow that allowed every gun owner to do anything he or she wanted to do,
Click to expand...
Wait I'm confused...I thought that law was the Second Amendment...

That's it!! Tomorrow, I'm voting to repeal it!


Liberal Gun Nut--

I understand your frustration. The problem is you're arguing with many libertarians. Most gun owners aren't hunters. Only 25% like shooting cute furry animals for food, warmth, and gawdy mantle pieces. The rest of us are about self-defense and freedom from tyranny. So if the federal government makes a law that says, "today, you can own a gun with the following restrictions" those of us that look in the future worry about what kind of anti-constitutional precedent that sets for us, our kids, and our grandkids.

Also to the larger argument about complaining about eroding states rights vs federal. This has got nothing to do with either. At least as of the 14th amendment, the right to bear arms must be viewed as an individual citizen's right at the expense of BOTH state and federal control...making sanctions from either, illegitimate.

Unfortunately there is no current legal precedent for this opinion...at least not yet. So we're stuck with these egregious violations of the simply stated, common understanding of the United States' Constitution.
 
"At least as of the 14th amendment, the right to bear arms must be viewed as an individual citizen's right at the expense of BOTH state and federal control...making sanctions from either, illegitimate."

Citation, please?
 
Citation, please?
Click to expand...

The original framer of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, made it clear that the entirety of the bill of rights as it applies to the people would apply against state encroachment. It was the cases of US v. Cruikshank, The Slaughterhouse Cases, and Presser v. Illinois where a pro-southern Supreme Court destroyed the 14th amendment and made it a nullity for many years, similar to what happened with the "Miller mutations" and the second amendment being interpreted as a "collective right"' in modern times.

The Supreme Court in the 20th Century adopted something called the "selective incorporation" doctrine that stated that rights had to be "incorporated against the states". Which basically is a load of crap. The author of the 14th amendment is clear: All rights were incorporated against the states. The Supreme Court chose incorporation as a way of dealing with their own prejudices against the plain wording of the 14th amendment.
 
monkeyleg said:
Citation, please?
Click to expand...

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

I'm going with the whole..."no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

but the rest of it is pretty good too...
 
Iunderstand your frustration. The problem is you're arguing with many libertarians. Most gun owners aren't hunters. Only 25% like shooting cute furry animals for food, warmth, and gawdy mantle pieces. The rest of us are about self-defense and freedom from tyranny. So if the federal government makes a law that says, "today, you can own a gun with the following restrictions" those of us that look in the future worry about what kind of anti-constitutional precedent that sets for us, our kids, and our grandkids.
Click to expand...

And this has NOTHING to do with that. There are already a million and one Federal regulations on guns, controlling bore size, barrel length, overall length, calibers, what kind of metal bullets can be made of, how many times it can fire when you pull the trigger, how the action must be, how it must be machined (no holes where there shouldn't be), and a nearly infinite number of other minute details. Then there are another infinity of Federal laws governing manufacturing, distribution, sales, and transportation of guns. Those laws are all there, on the books!

Instead of doing something about that whole raft of law that's already there, and another whole raft of laws that are floating around in Congress constantly, we have gun owners worrying about ONE Federal law that would be a tremendous help for all of us, especially in the non-CCW states. It's a law that doesn't create any new Federal powers. It removes limits on gun owners. It's the one law that is entirely positive for us, and out of all the bad gun laws out there (NFA, GCA, the '86 MG ban, and millions of other smaller things) we have to pick this one law and fight against it?

This is so stupid. Don't give me "I oppose this because I'm a Libertarian" arguments. If you are, fine, work on some other laws that are harmful to us. That's great.
 
I am ashamed to admit that for a time I blinded myself to the progression of gun laws. I enlisted in the Navy a little under 4 years ago. When I learned I was getting stationed in California, I sold my guns that I owned legally in AZ. Why? Because I was going to be living on base, which owning a firearm on base is not impossible, but improbable, and some where not on the CA approved list. The second part of that is because I had no place to safely store them.

One thing I did notice in this discussion is many people want the States to agree, yet not through a Federal Law. How can this be done? My suggestion, would be to have a state law educated point of contact for each state work together to make a proposal. One generic proposition that can then be tailored to each individual state while still upholding the agreement. From there, we (yes all of us) start to work on getting support for each proposition in our respective states.

Instead of complaining about what is, let's work together on what can be.

The sad truth about Gun Laws is this, the laws are ment to keep illegal actions with firearms from happening. The basic definition of a criminal is one that ignores the laws in the first place. So basically we are disarming the law abiding citizens and creating a larger victim pool for those who ignore the laws in the first place. That's just my humble opinion.
 
One thing I did notice in this discussion is many people want the States to agree, yet not through a Federal Law. How can this be done? My suggestion, would be to have a state law educated point of contact for each state work together to make a proposal. One generic proposition that can then be tailored to each individual state while still upholding the agreement. From there, we (yes all of us) start to work on getting support for each proposition in our respective states.
Click to expand...

Well, there's just one issue: taking that suggestion, New York would have never gone for it. New York State separates the new england from the rest of the country. Using your argument, the interstate firearms protection that was passed in 1986 should never have passed and New York and New Jersey would still be convicting people for their oppressive firearms laws.

There are certain states that will never go for any reciprocity. They need to be forced to honor and respect our license to carry, at least until the Supreme Court catches up and declare open carry bans and may-issue carry licensing unconstitutional.
 
Well, there's just one issue: taking that suggestion, New York would have never gone for it. New York State separates the new england from the rest of the country. Using your argument, the interstate firearms protection that was passed in 1986 should never have passed and New York and New Jersey would still be convicting people for their oppressive firearms laws.

There are certain states that will never go for any reciprocity. They need to be forced to honor and respect our license to carry, at least until the Supreme Court catches up and declare open carry bans and may-issue carry licensing unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

That is part of the point of creating a generic bill using individuals who are educated on the laws of each respective state. Then they taylor the bill for the state. The idea is to correct what is by making something new. I would have to be foolish to believe it would work hands down for every state. It is a starting point, from which to proceed. If it works on a large scale, it could be easier to "pressure" the remaining states to follow.

It is almost like the anti-smoking tactics. They start with one city and spread out.
 
That is part of the point of creating a generic bill using individuals who are educated on the laws of each respective state. Then they taylor the bill for the state. The idea is to correct what is by making something new. I would have to be foolish to believe it would work hands down for every state. It is a starting point, from which to proceed. If it works on a large scale, it could be easier to "pressure" the remaining states to follow.
Click to expand...

Again, you're assuming that every state will follow along with reciprocity and shall-issue. There are certain stubborn anti-gun states that will never keel over to the shall-issue "recognize all licenses" stance, or even any form of limited reciprocity. Again, this is why the FOPA interstate protections were passed, because New York simply would not allow people to transport their guns across the state without violating a law. Neither would Massachusetts.
 
Again, you're assuming that every state will follow along with reciprocity and shall-issue. There are certain stubborn anti-gun states that will never keel over to the shall-issue "recognize all licenses" stance, or even any form of limited reciprocity. Again, this is why the FOPA interstate protections were passed, because New York simply would not allow people to transport their guns across the state without violating a law. Neither would Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

Actually I am more stating to alter each proposal to each state knowing some states will not accept the idea from the get go. The best way to "win" is to chip at the defense of the toughest states. Some won their battles rapidly, and fight to hold those wins vigorously. So no, I do not expect to accomplish an over night battle. I mean to have the goal written, break it down to smaller battles. I know some states would have to be broken down to NUMEROUS battles. Any ground recovered is huge toward the goal.
 
Actually I am more stating to alter each proposal to each state knowing some states will not accept the idea from the get go. The best way to "win" is to chip at the defense of the toughest states. Some won their battles rapidly, and fight to hold those wins vigorously. So no, I do not expect to accomplish an over night battle. I mean to have the goal written, break it down to smaller battles. I know some states would have to be broken down to NUMEROUS battles. Any ground recovered is huge toward the goal.
Click to expand...

If I have to choose between a state by state battle that you propose that will take 2 decades, and a nationwide "notwithstanding bill" based on the old interstate transport law from 1986 cleaning up all the anti-gun states within 3 years, I'll take the latter option, thanks.
 
If I have to choose between a state by state battle that you propose that will take 2 decades, and a nationwide "notwithstanding bill" based on the old interstate transport law from 1986 cleaning up all the anti-gun states within 3 years, I'll take the latter option, thanks.
Click to expand...

Exactly! So why is it that so many people fight the nationwide "notwithstanding bill" based on the old interstate transport law from 1986? Probably because to many, nationwide = federal.
 
Exactly! So why is it that so many people fight the nationwide "notwithstanding bill" based on the old interstate transport law from 1986? Probably because to many, nationwide = federal.
Click to expand...

I could frankly give a #$^ what they think. As far as I'm concerned, if they don't support this bill, they support New York and Massachusett's oppressive gun control schemes and having people arrested when transiting across their states with an unloaded gun in their trunk from a state that is legal for them to possess said firearm, and another state where's it's legal (for example, someone from New Hampshire to Pennsylvania).

You didn't hear this kind of hue and cry back in 1986 when the original interstate transport law was being passed. Gun owners were begging for this law to get passed because anti-gun states were popping people left and right for interstate transport. Now they come right around and say "we can't support this bill because it gives power to the federal government. That's a load of crap.

If there was a notwithstanding bill to make state laws inapplicable to those who possess firearms, transprot them, carry them, etc, you can bet that these same people will complain.
 
The state by state idea will not work

Lonnie is right. I use to deal with the Rhode Island General Assembly for a couple of years in my former life. Now the group my friend and I run deal with the court aspect of getting the shall-issue law we have followed. I can tell you from experience that dealing with non pro-rights (not necessarily anti-gun) legislative bodies. It is impossible to get anything done. For years the NRA could not (still can not) even get handgun hunting in Rhode Island to be legal, you really think they will suddenly see the light and amend RI 11-47-8 to exempt any permit holder from anywhere from being required to obtain a RI Pistol Permit.... it aint gonna happen. Just as Florida will not repeal their shall-issue law, New York will not start to accomodate gun owners.

Do you know how long it took for the New York Legislature to amend the Sullivan Law to allow off-duty and retired NY LEO's (outside of NYPD or State Police) to be able to carry in New York City without obtaining the special license? It took well over a decade.

Do you know how long it took for New Jersey to adopt shall-issue for retired LEO's? It took many years.

These two examples only dealt with LEO's because to make positive changes for regular gun owners is impossible in these places and will be for the next 100 years.

John Birch spend over 10 years trying to get the Illinois Legislature to not allow localities to BAN HANDGUNS OUTRIGHT. He was unsuccessful.

Take it from someone who has worked with a legislative body, it's almost impossible in some areas.

People can talk about state's rights (non-existent for those of us who actually have read the Constitution), federal government or whatever. Until the Supreme Court rules our way (don't hold your breath) you all should take whatever help you can get.

It is ironic, there are people who have never wrote congress or the senate about anything, not even about the machinegun ban, yet they take the time to write a letter to their reps about not voting for the national reciprocity act.

Heck, who needs Sarah Brady when you can have gun owners fight their fight for them.
 
Lonnie Wilson and Jared_C are spot on. The simple truth is that many gunowners seem to think that this is a federal permit and it is the farthest thing from that. Many just fear the government even when it is trying to help us.
 
If I had a Virginia CCW permit, and I went to a State that didn't allow CCW, would this federal bill force that other State to allow me to CCW there?
 
If I had a Virginia CCW permit, and I went to a State that didn't allow CCW, would this federal bill force that other State to allow me to CCW there?
Click to expand...

That is correct. The only two states in the union that doesn't issue licenses are Illinois and Wisconsin. They would be subject to the "national standard". As soon as they pass CCW laws, their restricted areas would apply to you, not the national standard.

Btw, if you violate the "national standard" in those two states or violate the restricted areas of another state that issue CCW (yes, even DC issues CCW's), you would not in any way be subject to any federal prosecution. You would, however, be subject to the authorities in that state since you would be losing that notwithstanding protection from the federal law.
 
I am 100% aware that a state by state approach would be extremely time consuming, aggrivating and ultimately fail. The approach I took was "Devil's Advocate" since this thread had a large number of "It's Federal and that's bad" comments.

My situation is difficult in that I am an AZ resident stationed in CA. Do I register to vote in CA to try to change the laws here, or do I continue to keep my AZ residency and protect the laws that favor my rights? Honestly, I look at it this way, I will not be stationed here long. I will keep my residency and continue to vote in a state that I have gun rights in. Hopefully my next duty station will be in a more gun friendly state.
 
Well Damien 45 if you had an Arizona CCW permit then you could carry in California if this law was passed. And I am sure storing your weapon would have been worth the trouble.

Seriously though I dont uderstand why you all refuse to support a law that helps us because you percieve it to be unconstitutional when it is not? The Full Faith and Credit Clause gives us the right to carry in all the states using our CCW permits. The 2nd Amendment does as well.

I am going to start a poll asking if any would vote to reappeal the FOPA.

The Senate debates occupied but a single day. They opened with a series of amendments that were adopted by (p.621)voice vote. Most were technical, but three had substantive effects. The first changed the bill's proclamation that state laws which had "the effect" of barring interstate travel with an unloaded, "inaccessible firearm" were to be "null and void." The new language would simply recognize the right to transport a firearm, notwithstanding such laws.[187] The second deleted as redundant S. 49's provision that prosecutions were not allowed for simple negligence.[188] The third provided a misdemeanor penalty for a licensee's making of a false statement in, or failure to maintain, records required by the chapter.[189] All remaining amendments were decisively rejected[190] and S. 49 passed the Senate by a 79-15 vote.[191]
Click to expand...

Where I got the quote above.

Why are the Feds stopping state and local prosecutors from prosecuting people who broke state and local laws against firearm transportation. If a state says it is not going to allow people from neighboring states to transport a firearm then we should support it. I mean we are strict Constitutionalists. Right? The states have the right to say whether people can transport firearms through their state and the National Legistlators should not take that away. I guess we should stop supporting the NRA as they helped tailor this bill... unconstitutional fascists!:scrutiny:

In all seriousness I hear people talk about how unconstitutional some bills passed by local and state legistlatures. All the time on gun forums. Now here is a bill that some of you say is Unconstitutional but helps our cause immensely and you wont accept it. Yet you accept others even though you dont want to?

I dont understand. Why not just accept that Congress is going to pass Unconstitutional laws anyway and have them pass one that favors us gunowners as a whole?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top