Senate Reconciliation and Right to Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bushmaster1313

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
3,653
Location
Peoples Republik of New Jersey
Not too long ago, a Bill to make carry permits good across the entire United States was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 58 to 42. 58 for to 42 against. The only reason it lost was because a deal was struck that a vote could be had but that it would require 60 votes to pass.

If reconciliation had been applied to this Bill, right to carry would be the law in New Jersey and not a pipe dream.
 
National concealed carry standards would likely be a disaster for the majority of 'free states' because the standards would be so stringent that it would be a lose/lose for nearly everyone.

It would be a better solution for the 5 bad states to just fix themselves or for those residents to move away.
 
National concealed carry standards would likely be a disaster for the majority of 'free states' because the standards would be so stringent that it would be a lose/lose for nearly everyone.
Click to expand...

The Bill was not for national standards.

I believe the Bill would have made each state honor the carry permit of any other state. Just like a Driver's License.

Considering that in 2006 there were about 45,000 motor vehicle deaths and about 30,000 firearm deaths, it would make sense to allow national right to carry before allowing natinal driving.

Moreover, I bet the vast majority of the 30,000 firearm deaths had nothing to do with handguns carried by a permit holder.
 
Last edited:
We don't really want the FEDS getting involved in concealed carry... this is really an issue of state concern. Until this week it was illegal to carry in Federal parks.
 
it was actually better than driver's license reciprocity, because the bill specifically mentioned that "residents of states with no licensing or permit requirement to carry concealed" could carry without a permit or license, in any other state. In other words, Under the previous National CCW bill, Vermont residents were inherently more trustworthy than any other states' residents.
 
Whenever the federal government gets involved, there are always unintended consequences. I would prefer the people of NJ fix their own problems, rather than draggging the fed government into it, and possibly creating unintended consequences for me.

There are many things that the federal government does not mandate, but are essentially required. One of these was to raise a state's drinking age to 21. If you didnt do it, they would cut off highway funding. But each state was allowed to make its own decision. Of course, every state raised its drinking age to 21.

Another example, more closely related to gun rights, is that in Georgia, the ATF determined a couple of years ago that the Georgia CCW permit was not sufficient to subsitute for a NICS check when a gun purchase was made. They did not require GA to change their licensing requirements and background checks, but instead simply required all GA residents who purchased a gun to go through a NICS check. GA then voluntarily fixed the permit to allow for a more extensive background check, and the ATF once again let the GA permit substitute for NICS.

So what would happen if as a consequence of a nationwide CCW bill or nationwide reciprocity, some government do gooder came up with a list of national requirements for CCW. If a state did not adopt them, federal funding for some program would be denied.

There are many backdoor ways the fed government could attempt to regulate by witholding funds.
 
I'd like to enjoy my civil rights in the entire country, not just the sensible parts. That is why we have the 14th amendment.
 
I believe the Bill would have made each state honor the carry permit of any other state. Just like a Driver's License.
Click to expand...

Yes, think about that though. If you have a drivers license from Texas you may drive in Texas or Arizona. Those 2 states have different speed limits etc and you must obey the traffic laws of the state you are in, not the state you are licensed in.

So, this would be the same. New Jersey would be forced to recognize your permit but you would have to carry as New Jersey laws allows, which is pretty much nothing.

What good would that do?

So, the Fed would have to impose some minimum standard of concealed carry on the states for it to be effective.

In the end that's a bad idea, allowing the Federal government to dictate terms of concealed carry.
 
Do you understand what reconciliation and the Byrd rule mean? I think not. :D
 
I think it was a good try, but I'm seeing a movement of the states back to 2A rights, and I think that no action at the federal level is needed. Look at the AZ and WY proposals for vermont-style carry. I'll bet you a bunch that it will catch on and will sweep the nation. That is a much better solution, IMO, and one that seems to be much more achievable today than 10 years ago.
 
So, this would be the same. New Jersey would be forced to recognize your permit but you would have to carry as New Jersey laws allows, which is pretty much nothing.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, someone who manages to obtain a fabled unrestricted NJ carry license, can carry any time, anywhere, open or concealed, in the state (fed property obviously exempt, I think courthouses too). The only weirdo restriction is that you can't carry hollow points.



edit: the same trend holds true for a lot of "may-issue" states, in that the permit holders are a select number of elite, but those permit holders enjoy far greater freedom to carry than the proletariat who have "shall-issue" licenses in more gun friendly states.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with the general notion expressed by some that a federalization of carry permits would probably not mark any real change in the current system that couldn't be better enacted on a state-by-state basis.

Much like with the adoption of rights in other areas, there is resistance at first, and then over time those who opposed those rights being granted find that the sky didn't fall, the world didn't end, and in the case of CC, people were not running around shooting each other over a spot in line at the grocery store. Over time I think we'll see even these most resistant states adopt CC laws. And this is the best way to handle it. Ultimately, beyond 2A, it is my personal opinion that laws pertaining to specifics of RKBA are best decided as close to the community they affect as possible. So, rather than a federal law pertaining to CC being enacted, and various states and communities feeling they are forced to live with it, I'd rather these laws be decided by the will of the respective populations.

I don't really see the comparisons to driving to be appropriate ones. For example, driving permit recognition was "nationalized" primarily because there is an underlying infrastructure supported by the federal government (the interstate highway system). There is no corresponding underlying infrastructure involved in carrying.

I also must think that the more we can steer clear of comparing guns and cars the better.
 
The reconciliation process is not supposed to be used flippantly for issues like nation-wide reciprocity or health care.
It was created to push budgetary issues through. All other uses of this process are against parliamentary procedure.

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm
Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BTW, that vote was totally engineered to give the Democrats the most pro-gun histories without it actually passing. If there were a real chance of getting 60 serious voters, it would have been organized completely differently (watch the cspan videos of the vote if you can still find them - they played the vote like a fiddle, like both parties regularly do).
 
I have to agree with the position of keeping it within the individual states. There are a few left out there that are still restrictive but there are pretty strong movements in some of them to fix the problem. I would rather adjust or avoid a few states than have the Great Father dictate for us all.
There is a lot of activity in the free states to remove even more restraints on firearms and the feds are fighting it to keep power. I don't want my permit issued by the BATF but rather eventually need no permit at all.
 
I'm sure you can guess, if you don't already know, how I view the notion of applying for a permit to exercise a God-given right. As far as nation-wide reciprocity legislation, I only want to quote one of our resident experts on the Constitution, the original intentions of the FF, and liberty in general. I can't say it any better, and Woody knows more than many of us put together. We can all learn a lot from his posts.

You don't want the feds in on it anyway. It would amount to a de facto recognition of legitimacy to all the unconstitutional state laws that make it necessary to obtain a permit/license to carry a gun.

If Congress wishes to make it no longer illegal to carry a gun into any state, Congress has the power to pass legislation to forbid the several states to pass or enforce any law that infringes upon the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

That, my friends, is the simple and short answer. Doing things correctly is usually the shortest and simplest method. "Helping" the several states to abide the Constitution is the correct thing to do.

That is the kind of legislation I can get behind. The Constitution is all the preemption necessary - it being the Supreme Law of the Land.

....

I've already got the right. It's just infringed at present. This bill doesn't strip away any rights. This bill doesn't restore any rights. It merely adds to the confusion of the profusion of unconstitutional laws in most all of the several states.

... the desired result is to unfetter our rights. This bill does not do that. It's just a bandaid that can fall off the first time you wash your hands. The desired result is the unfettered keeping and bearing of arms. Dumping the unconstitutional law will accomplish that with no need for governmental or intergovernmental intrusion. It can't be any more simple!

Woody
Click to expand...
 
You know, I really wanted this to pass too. It would've enabled carry in NYC and other places that are otherwise off limits to us peons.
 
Posted by Prince Yamato
You know, I really wanted this to pass too. It would've enabled carry in NYC and other places that are otherwise off limits to us peons.
Click to expand...
Posted by TexasRifleman (with a bit of my editing)
NYC [strike]New Jersey[/strike] would be forced to recognize your permit but you would have to carry as [strike]New Jersey[/strike] NYC laws allows, which is pretty much nothing.
Click to expand...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5277089&highlight=reciprocity#post5277089
It would amount to a de facto recognition of legitimacy to all the unconstitutional state laws that make it necessary to obtain a permit/license to carry a gun.
Click to expand...

Prince, is this what you really want? Just asking.:)
 
Last edited:
As it is now the states determine their handgun carry laws and there is debate on how the 2a would be interpreted as to CC. I have no doubt about it in my mind but if it is left to the central gov. you can expect it to be tainted and diluted by every anti in congress until we are at a point far less than we are now. It may be selfish for me to say screw NYC but that is no different than you wanting the whole country to follow just so you can carry in NYC. Time will straighten out the ones lagging behind or they will become irrelevant, in the mean time I will give them a wide berth when ever possible.
 
Yep.

If you look at this thread...http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=507762, you can see that the feds didn't write the definition of 'Federal Facility' coherently enough for any of us to know what we can or can't do.

Therefore, does anyone here want the same feds writing a nation-wide reciprocity bill that patches all the holes between the way 50 different states regulate the issue of concealed carry?

Not me. No thank you.
 
Although right-to-carry as understood in most [free] states would be nice in NJ, I'm not sure that I'd want to exercise it, even if within the confines of the law there. Reason being, NJ LEO's (especially NJ State "Troopers") have an extraordinarily negative predisposition toward us "civilian" firearm owners; a behavior which I suspect is only encouraged in their training and reinforced by departmental fiat once on the job. Although I'm sure there are some closeted pro-2A cops throughout the state, odds are you'd be in for an unpleasant experience if discovered to be carrying a weapon anywhere in the PRNJ, permit or otherwise. I'm sure the police are equally as unfamiliar with the mythical NJ CCW as are the general populace, so be prepared to deliver a lengthy (and convincing) explanation if ever detained under such circumstances. BTW, you will be handcuffed, and most likely arrested. For the officer's safety, of course. However, this discussion is largely academic anyway, since the law was never passed.

You can bet your bottom dollar there'd be a frantic effort to amend the relevant NJ statute(s) governing the carrying of firearms if the aforementioned bill had passed, once the esteemed legislature realized how many individuals would now be prima facie permitted to carry a gun. You can expect to be barred from carrying in bars, restaurants, airports, seaports, grocery stores, playgrounds, and any place where more than, oh, let's say, 10 people congregate at any given moment. This would be for our safety, of course. After decades of brow-beating gun owners, there's no way the NJ Legislature would just throw up their hands and go peacefully into the night after something like that.

FWIW, I reside in a gun-hating state [not by choice, but that's a story for another day], and I fully agree with those who see passage of this federal legislation as a bad idea. Although those of us unlucky enough to live in NJ, NY, CA, MA, etc. would ostensibly stand to benefit from such a law, it is nonetheless tantamount to allowing the camel's nose under the tent. You do not want the federal government involved in this. Although many here lack the means to simply get up and move to a free state, such still remains the most effective solution for instantaneously improving one's circumstances WRT one's 2A rights. This is federalism at its core, and is no accident. This is how the Founders structured our system of government; to give at least a place of refuge that would comport to an individual's preferences, should one find one's original state's form of government no longer suitable. Activists should focus on improving gun laws in NJ to the level of those in places like TX, FL, PA, and not encumbering the latter with federal intervention that will eventually create problems where there were none before.

My apologies to the Mods if I've drifted too far into politics here.
 
A History Of Reconciliation

For 30 years, major changes to health care laws have passed via the budget reconciliation process. Here are a few examples:

1982 — TEFRA: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act first opened Medicare to HMOs

1986 — COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care

1987 — OBRA '87: Added nursing home protection rules to Medicare and Medicaid, created no-fault vaccine injury compensation program

1989 — OBRA '89: Overhauled doctor payment system for Medicare, created new federal agency on research and quality of care

1990 — OBRA '90: Added cancer screenings to Medicare, required providers to notify patients about advance directives and living wills, expanded Medicaid to all kids living below poverty level, required drug companies to provide discounts to Medicaid

1993 — OBRA '93: created federal vaccine funding for all children

1996 — Welfare Reform: Separated Medicaid from welfare

1997 — BBA: The Balanced Budget Act created the state-federal childrens' health program called CHIP

2005 — DRA: The Deficit Reduction Act reduced Medicaid spending, allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top