National Right to Carry Reciprocity Legislation

[Midwest]

Nothing in any of these bills would allow for the creation of a registry. All that would happen is that a CHL from Texas would be valid in NY. You'd still have to abide by the SAFE ACT. All that would change is that you could carry in NY.

Every time this topic comes up, people crawl out of the woodwork and swear up and down that Hilary/Obama/Teh Gheys/the UN are going to impose their "will" upon some backwater Mississippi town and suddenly the Second Amendment will vanish.

Let me clue some of you folks in. All the states will never agree on the 2A. NYS will not change, because NYC has all the votes. CA will not change because of LA and San Francisco. National Reciprocity will drag NY, NJ, and CA kicking and screaming into line with the rest of America in terms of ability to carry freely in said state. Said states will still (probably) get to keep their AWBs and local ordinances. You'll have to abide by them, but you'll be able to carry. That's a huge deal.

In a perfect world, yes, all the state's rights arguments people make would ring true. We don't live in that world. Honestly, I wonder if some people ever leave their domiciles, let alone travel out of their state when I read some of these responses.

I actually LIKE going to NYC. I have family all over NY. I' like to visit. San Francisco has beautiful weather and lots of culture. I don't like LA, but I might have to pass through if I want to go to San Diego. You know what would make my trip even better? NATIONAL RECIPROCITY.

Maybe one day, I'll get enough money to participate in a Gumball Rally from LA to NYC. I'll ccw my Sig p238 and stop for lunch in Chicago. I'll end it by attending a gay wedding in Central Park.

Some of you really need to get over yourselves.

Some areas of New York issue carry permits to it's citizens without restrictions. New York City isn't one of those areas.

So how would reciprocity work in New York City where it doesn't issue carry permits without a genuine need? How could people from Florida or Kentucky be able to carry in New York City ...since NYC won't issue permits to it's residents ...so there is no hope of reciprocity to begin with?

New York City residents would not be able to carry in California, because New York City residents are not going to get a carry permit from the City of New York. So then how could a California resident come to NYC and start carrying? They can't even under a reciprocity law because NYC won't issue carry permits in the first place to it's own citizens.

How would reciprocity work in New Jersey where it doesn't issue carry permits to it's citizens? How would people from Florida or Kentucky be legally able to carry in New Jersey ...since NJ isn't going to issue carry permits to it's own residents...and if that is the case there is no chance of reciprocity with New Jersey.

So how is New Jersey is going to allow someone from another state to carry in their state while New Jersey doesn't not allow it's citizens to carry in their own state. Reciprocity is going to fix that? It can't

How will a New Jersey citizen be able to carry in California under Reciprocity when the New Jersey citizen can't even get a carry permit in their own state? How would a Maryland resident be able to carry in New Jersey under reciprocity? They can't since Maryland and New Jersey do not issue carry permits to it's residents without an absolute genuine need.

Three states, New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii do not issue carry permits to it's residents without an absolute genuine need. How would reciprocity work there? So reciprocity would only work in 47 states because NJ, MD and HI do not issue carry permits. Then what would be the point of the law if it wasn't legal in all 50 states? And what about Washington DC? Puerto Rico? U.S. territories? Why stop at the states?

In order for a reciprocity law to have any effect whatsoever. Those three "needs based" states (NJ, MD and HI) would have to go shall issue. And then the rest of the NY and CA counties would have have to go shall issue in order to have any hope of reciprocity. I don't see New Jersey changing anytime soon. In fact (like I said earlier), NJ is looking to enact more gun control as soon as Gov. Christie is out of office!
.

 

[Lord Teapot]

keep the federal government out of carry rights. they've proven before how much they respect the constitution, cue patriot act.

 

[HexHead]

Some areas of New York issue carry permits to it's citizens without restrictions. New York City isn't one of those areas.

So how would reciprocity work in New York City where it doesn't issue carry permits without a genuine need? How could people from Florida or Kentucky be able to carry in New York City ...since NYC won't issue permits to it's residents ...so there is no hope of reciprocity to begin with?

New York City residents would not be able to carry in California, because New York City residents are not going to get a carry permit from the City of New York. So then how could a California resident come to NYC and start carrying? They can't even under a reciprocity law because NYC won't issue carry permits in the first place to it's own citizens.

How would reciprocity work in New Jersey where it doesn't issue carry permits to it's citizens? How would people from Florida or Kentucky be legally able to carry in New Jersey ...since NJ isn't going to issue carry permits to it's own residents...and if that is the case there is no chance of reciprocity with New Jersey.

So how is New Jersey is going to allow someone from another state to carry in their state while New Jersey doesn't not allow it's citizens to carry in their own state. Reciprocity is going to fix that? It can't

How will a New Jersey citizen be able to carry in California under Reciprocity when the New Jersey citizen can't even get a carry permit in their own state? How would a Maryland resident be able to carry in New Jersey under reciprocity? They can't since Maryland and New Jersey do not issue carry permits to it's residents without an absolute genuine need.

Three states, New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii do not issue carry permits to it's residents without an absolute genuine need. How would reciprocity work there? So reciprocity would only work in 47 states because NJ, MD and HI do not issue carry permits. Then what would be the point of the law if it wasn't legal in all 50 states? And what about Washington DC? Puerto Rico? U.S. territories? Why stop at the states?

In order for a reciprocity law to have any effect whatsoever. Those three "needs based" states (NJ, MD and HI) would have to go shall issue. And then the rest of the NY and CA counties would have have to go shall issue in order to have any hope of reciprocity. I don't see New Jersey changing anytime soon. In fact (like I said earlier), NJ is looking to enact more gun control as soon as Gov. Christie is out of office!
.

It sucks to live in those states now, and it would suck even more when visitors can carry and the residents can't. Maybe then the idiots will change their voting habits.

 

[Midwest]

In order to be reciprocal, both states have to give and take. Otherwise there is no reciprocity.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/reciprocity


"The practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one country or organization to another."

What does New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii have to offer in exchange? Nothing . Then how can there be reciprocity? No reciprocity, then no exchange.

If there were a National Right to Carry law requiring reciprocity, how would that be accomplished when some states refuse carry permits to it's own citizens? What would stop Maryland from saying, ..."sure we honor the law but since we don't issue carry permits to residents, we can't honor it. But if we did issue carry permit we would honor it". It's kind of like a catch 22.

Then we have issues were a number of states already do issue carry permits, but they only honor some of the states that have carry permits...but not all of them. Would the reciprocity law fix those circumstances? How would it be enforced? Now we have potential states rights issues.

What about Vermont, they don't have carry permits. How is someone from Vermont able to carry in New York or California?

Where do these concerns come from about States rights and Privacy issues? How can one state could affect someone else even if they live in another state?

Well lets see how drivers license reciprocity is handled. (Yes I know not to use drivers license and gun rights-I get it). But we are just talking about reciprocity in general and to illustrate this we need to look at something already in place. So how does it work for drivers licenses? Who administers it? And how could there be potential for abuse.

Drivers licenses and reciprocity. Read the parts I put in bold. (This is from wiki, and no copyright restrictions.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Agreement

"In the United States, the Driver License Agreement (DLA) is an interstate compact written by the Joint Executive Board of the Driver License Compact (DLC) and the Non-Resident Violator Compact (NRVC) with staff support provided by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA).

The DLA requires all states to honor licenses issued by other member states, report traffic convictions to the licensing state, prohibit a member state from confiscating an out-of-state driver's license or jailing an out-of-state driver for a minor violation; and maintain a complete driver's history, including withdrawals and traffic convictions including those committed in non-DLA states.

When a DLA member state receives a report concerning its drivers from a non-DLA member state, the member state will be required to treat the report the same as if it came from a member state. As with the previous compacts, the DLA requires a state to post all out-of-state traffic convictions to the driver's record, and a state must apply its own laws to all out-of-state convictions.

As with the previous compacts, the DLA allows other jurisdictions to access motor vehicle records, in accordance with the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), and to transfer the driver's history if the driver transfers his license.


The DLA has some changes from the NRVC. Unlike the NRVC, under the DLA, adverse action can be taken against a driver for not responding to violations such as equipment violations, registration violations, parking violations, and weight limit violations. Other changes from the NRVC are that in order for a driver to keep his license under the NRVC, he just had to respond to the citation by paying the fine.

With the DLA, the driver must comply with any order from the out of state court. An example would be a driver from Arizona getting cited for tinted windows while traveling through Virginia, even though the tinted windows are legal back at home. The driver is ordered to fix the tint to meet Virginia law even though the driver left Virginia.

Under the NRVC, to retain said license, the driver just pays the fine but with DLA, the driver must do what the court says including but not limited to paying a fine, but also fixing vehicle equipment, and/or community service."

.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I would ask anyone here that proposes federal legislation to look at the 74,000 pages of federal tax code. Then ask yourself if the federal gov't is capable of writing anything simple in one page or less that would benefit concealed carry.

If you have ever worked for a gov't agency (I have) you would know the citizens best interests are not their #1 priority.

The recent SC decision was a political knee jerk. The 10th amendment was trampled and no longer means a damn thing. There is absolutely nothing in the 14th amendment to support their decision. The only reason the district courts and the SC hasn't strongly ruled in favor of shall issue is because it is politically unsavory.

 

[oneounceload]

Then ask yourself if the federal gov't is capable of writing anything simple in one page or less that would benefit .......

Anyone about ANYthing............ever............Every issue has become a vehicle for total government control from BLM, Social Security, Education, etc. - why would anyone think this would be any different?

 

[eddd7]

Ordinarily I would say that this is a non-starter because it absolutely tramples states rights, but the SCOTUS decision on Friday proved that they don't care about states rights at all.

I don't think that legislation will ever pass and if it does the standards for concealed carry permits will rapidly become awful. California will say "ok, you can carry here but you have to take an 80 hour class with a test at the end that you have to score a 95% on, followed by a handgun shooting test at ranges from 3-100 yards and all shots must be within the black." My example might be a bit extreme, but things will get harder for everyone, not easier.

But then, there's interesting take on the (illegal) SCOTUS ruling.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGrgRt3JMXMYIYvtor57vEsTOp6iA

 

[1911 guy]

eddd7, that's the very issue being discussed here. The argument is crap for all the reasons stated previously in this thread.

While it would be very handy to have reciprocity in all states, it would require further bastardization of the Constitution.

 

[RustyShackelford]

post #14, LEOSA, CCW ....

In response to #14; does the NRA-ILA get included in the group of "anti-gun" "anti 2A supporters" .

As posted, I do not support the national CCW or federal laws that would mandate any registrations, states or city governments "sharing" data , ID cards, lists, etc etc.
A national CCW or new federal program for CCW could be filled with fraud-waste-abuse & the data system would be a prime target for "black hat" hackers or US enemies.

I'd add that I looked over the CT public safety & emergency mgmt site & they had specific SOPs-rules about LEOSA.
If I stayed on active duty until retirement or was medical disabled(combat wounded), I'd sign up for LEOSA too but if it was a hassle or a mess to do re-quals/licenses I'd just stick with my state issue CCW license.

 

[oneounceload]

BryanDavis,

Read and research the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

Then read and research the very successful use of the 10th Amendment that has resulted in conceal carry laws in all 50 States.

After doing all of that present a logical, factual argument as to why gun owners in Kansas who fought a long and successful fight to have the right to unlicensed open and concealed carry, unrestricted transportation of loaded and unloaded firearms in their vehicles, no magazine capacity limits, no restrictions on bullet type and style, non-criminal law for carrying in a building that has no guns signs posted should compromise on any of our rights to a overly expansive Central Government.

I fail to understand why gun owners are willing to surrender our rights when we are winning the fight in the States and in the Courts while preventing more restrictive gun laws on the Federal level from being passed.

Well said and a point many seem to miss......(I suspect that the lack of civics class in high school is to blame)

 

[X-Rap]

I can't believe anyone would dare tempt fate with today's climate in all three branches of gov.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well we continue to recycle the same arguments on each side of the question. And no one has come forward with any argument as to why the Obergefell decision, based on what the opinion actually says, supports the federal government getting into the act.