3Rivers Archery Supply
Another reciprocity law
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Spike Bull 24-Nov-17
Mike in CT 25-Nov-17
Owl 25-Nov-17
Spike Bull 25-Nov-17
ASCTLC 25-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 25-Nov-17
Owl 25-Nov-17
HA/KS 25-Nov-17
Russ Koon 26-Nov-17
Spike Bull 26-Nov-17
HA/KS 26-Nov-17
Glunt@work 26-Nov-17
Spike Bull 27-Nov-17
bad karma 27-Nov-17
sundowner 27-Nov-17
sundowner 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
Glunt@work 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
Glunt@work 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
bad karma 27-Nov-17
Glunt@work 27-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
Rocky 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
Glunt@work 27-Nov-17
Spike Bull 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
Owl 27-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 27-Nov-17
HA/KS 27-Nov-17
Shuteye 27-Nov-17
ASCTLC 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 27-Nov-17
Owl 27-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 28-Nov-17
Spike Bull 29-Nov-17
Spike Bull 30-Nov-17
Coyote 65 30-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 04-Dec-17
Bowbender 04-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 04-Dec-17
Bowbender 04-Dec-17
Coyote 65 04-Dec-17
Michael 05-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 05-Dec-17
Michael 05-Dec-17
Spike Bull 05-Dec-17
Bowbender 05-Dec-17
Spike Bull 05-Dec-17
Shuteye 05-Dec-17
bad karma 05-Dec-17
Michael 06-Dec-17
JTV 06-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 06-Dec-17
spike78 06-Dec-17
Annony Mouse 06-Dec-17
bad karma 06-Dec-17
Spike Bull 07-Dec-17
Spike Bull 07-Dec-17
Spike Bull 07-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 07-Dec-17
Spike Bull 08-Dec-17
24-Nov-17

Spike Bull 's Link
SC AG appeals to congress.

From: Mike in CT
25-Nov-17
Interesting.....

From: Owl
25-Nov-17
I know I am in an uber- minority but I believe national reciprocity is the 2nd fastest way to lose our 2A rights. The first being to vote for any democrat.

25-Nov-17
Perhaps not such a minority, Owl. You and I have seen this the same way since it's inception. While this looks good on the surface, it is foolish to trust the government to keep it's word on anything, let alone our RIGHTS.

From: ASCTLC
25-Nov-17
I suspect there are many of us out here that hopes that never gets past the "stupid idea" stage Owl. I can change states but won't change countries, so reciprocity laws are better left at the state level because the Fed is sure to agree to the most onerous requirements to get a permit (il/ca/nj/typicalfoolishliberalstate).

From: Gray Ghost
25-Nov-17
Multiple states already have reciprocity agreements with other states in place. I see no reason for the feds to get involved.

Matt

From: Owl
25-Nov-17
Glad to see I have good company fellas. :) In my highly cynical view of national politics, the feds would get involved to legitimize the application suffocating blue state controls on red state (relative) liberties . The ultimate camel's nose.

From: HA/KS
25-Nov-17
It is a bad idea, just like requiring states to allow out of state health insurance companies to sell in their state.

From: Russ Koon
26-Nov-17
I have had pretty much the same suspicions as most of the above posters since I first read of the reciprocity laws being proposed. I've seen too many things sold to us as being good ideas with the best intentions, and ended up being very poor bargains for us after a few years of federal mismanagement and "beneficial" changes.

State level reciprocity agreements are a good thing and should be encouraged and continued for the actual existing reasons. Inviting federal inclusion into the process in order to "force" our liberties onto populations who won't or can't secure them at their own state levels is a bad idea on at least two levels.

Politically, it might make good "trading material" like drawing a great QB in the draft when we already have one in good health and another steady backup. If we ever get back to an atmosphere where political horse-trading and compromises are possible, that would be about the only value I could foresee in passing a federal reciprocity bill.

26-Nov-17
Not near the same, HA. Not to mention that the feds are already up to their ears in the health insurance business, illegally in fact.

From: HA/KS
26-Nov-17
Spike, it is the same. In both cases, people want the feds to force states to do something.

From: Glunt@work
26-Nov-17
The time when Feds should intervene in State laws is when the State laws are unconstitutional. Some see this issue that way. Yes, dictating the ability and how you carry your sidearm to law abiding citizens is an infringement, but the path to correct that isn't more laws.

This law may actually help the goal of being able to carry more places but it doesn't do it the right way. When laws exist that keep people from being able to exercise their rights, the correct path to fixing it is eliminating the problem laws, not creating a new law with a tweaked version of how people's rights will or won't be permitted.

We started our nation with the ability to carry. Just keep eliminating laws until we are back to that place.

Unfortunately thats not what they are doing. In this case the Feds are saying gun control is fine, but our Federal version is better than the State version.

27-Nov-17
Not near convinced, my friend!

From: bad karma
27-Nov-17
The problem with federal reciprocity is simple: What would a President Hillary Clinton do to ruin it? And Hillary is far from the only one.

From: sundowner
27-Nov-17
HA/KS: "Spike, it is the same. In both cases, people want the feds to force states to do something."

Not the same. Insurance companies should be ALLOWED to sell their products in other states. You know, like Michelin sells tires, etc. Why single out insurance products?

From: sundowner
27-Nov-17
And for the record, I do agree that national reciprocity would be a great danger to the right to bear arms. What the Fed gives, it can also take......and would no doubt eventually do so.

Trust no politician with your rights.....NOR you wife!

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Owl and others,

I don't see this your way.

We have reciprocity for driver's licenses.

All a properly written reciprocity for CCW would do is require State A to honor a permit issued by State B.

Just like driver's licenses.

It would NOT get involved in what each state's CCW law requires a person to do to get a permit.

From: Glunt@work
27-Nov-17
Sundowner hit the root.

The right to carry is inherent. When we (as we) change that to a right created by the government, it can just as quickly be eliminated by the government.

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
How would that create a right? All it would do keep a state from denying me a Constitutional right when I'm in that state.

From: Glunt@work
27-Nov-17
If that was their intention, the correct path would be striking down the State law requiring a CC license that violates our right.

The approach of this law is a Federal law to protect the right of a CC holder to carry. The problem is they are saying that right exists because it was granted by the State they reside in. By supporting this, I believe I would be supporting their premise that the right to carry is created by the State.

I could support laws like this if the subject is drivers licenses and maybe real estate, insurance broker or electrician licenses. Those are things that a State correctly has authority over but it may makes sense to be recognized across the State line. The problem then is that since those are under the State, it needs to meet a high standard before supporting the Feds being involved.

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Glunt,

As far as I know, there is no Federal involvement for the things you named above. Besides, unlike the 2/A, none of those things are protected under the Constitution.

Ideally, states would not need to issue carry permits because it is already a Constitutionally protected right. A couple of states already take that position, such as Vermont and Alaska.

But until we get there (don't hold your breath), a well written Federal Reciprocity law would need only two sentences, such as:

All states shall honor concealed firearms carry permits from states which issue them. All states shall also honor the right to carry firearms from those states which do not require such permits."

From: bad karma
27-Nov-17
That may be all it needs, Nva, but that may not be all that it contains. I suspect the feds would insist on national standards for CCW permitting, just as they do for national DUI standards. And if the individual state does not comply, they'll hold out the threat of withholding federal grant money.

From: Glunt@work
27-Nov-17
The pragmatic thing would be to take what we can get I suppose. The Feds striking down all CC licensing is unrealistic at this time. Just ticks me off to create a law to modify an already unconstitutional law and at the same time affirm the notion that the right to CC is created by the State.

From: Gray Ghost
27-Nov-17
Kyle,

The problem lies with Constitutional carry states. Unlike driver's licenses, not all states require permits for CCW. So, federal reciprocity, would lead to conflicts between states with different permit requirements. The feds inevitable answer to that would be a nation-wide permitting process. I'm pretty sure no one here wants that.

Federally dictated reciprocity is a slippery slope, and a very bad idea for any gun rights advocates.

Matt

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Glunt,

As I noted above, properly written, the law would simply NEGATE the laws of those states which attempt to NEGATE the Constitution.

From: Rocky
27-Nov-17
"All" states would be the stumbling block in the present climate of gun ownership alone. Those states with strict gun laws would recoil to give Carte Blanche to gun proliferation as they would obviously see it. Passing such legislation would take a Herculean effort from both sides of the aisle and I can't see that happening, not today nor ever.

The Rock

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Matt, Kevin,

Per my suggested language, the 'Feds' could not 'require' any restrictions in a bill passed by Congress which does not allow them to do so.

Also, per my proposed language above, states which do not require a permit in the first place would automatically be included in the Reciprocity law.

From: Glunt@work
27-Nov-17
If your version passes Nva, I'll consider supporting it :^)

27-Nov-17
Nva, left up to you or I to write it and enforce it forever, you are correct. But, as bk and others point out, this would require standardization of the requirements. I would expect those states who do not want anyone wandering around their states with their own permits have very stringent requirements and would push hard for all states to meet their standards.

Most states would get much tougher requirements to satisfy the few commie states.

Best to let this all settle out on its own.

NH has no requirement for carry, even concealed. However, i get one vlid for 5 years just by applying and pating $10 because it is recognized in 20 other states!

True Constitutional carry here, that would surely change with passage of any reciprocity law that any blue states might approve of.

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Spike,

"But, as bk and others point out, this would require standardization of the requirements."

No, it would not!

27-Nov-17
reciprocity is not needed for a constitution based right.

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Straight Arrow,

Technically, that's correct.

But in Realville, that's not the way it works. So a law that requires states to recognize Constitutional 2/A rights is as close as we're likely to get and would be a big step forward.

From: Owl
27-Nov-17
Last I checked, half the national politicians were not obsessed with taking away my automobiles.

From: Gray Ghost
27-Nov-17
"But, as bk and others point out, this would require standardization of the requirements."

"No, it would not!"

Of course it would, Kyle.

Do you think the people of Florida, California, Illinois, New York, and South Carolina, all of which have banned open carry, are suddenly going to embrace open carry? Any federal reciprocity law would have to appease those states with the strictest requirements, which would inevitably lead to more strict requirements in lenient states.

IMO, this is nothing more than a backhanded attempt by the feds to gain control of all gun rights. Once they establish the authority to grant reciprocity, they could use that authority to dictate the requirements. I'm not willing to trust them with that responsibility.

Matt

From: HA/KS
27-Nov-17
"IMO, this is nothing more than a backhanded attempt by the feds to gain control of all gun rights. "

Even if it is not, that will be the result.

From: Shuteye
27-Nov-17
I hope your guys get what you want but it won't help me in Maryland. Now if they passed a must issue law, I would applaud. I also don't want the government know what guns I have. Down the road, when democrats control the house, senate and presidency, I can see them rounding up guns. I can legally carry in quite a few states but not my home state. Where I get my permit will not accept digital finger prints, they must be real finger prints on a card. I have to go to Delaware to get finger printed but the woman police officer is real nice and does it perfectly, she also fills out the required paperwork.

From: ASCTLC
27-Nov-17
And any attempt to "word it" would merely be a deceptive play simply to get their foot in the door to gain control so they can quickly follow new shooting with a knee jerk reactionary "improvement" .

No thanks, the majority of states have been making significant carry improvements on their own for quite some time now. Those states that have no intentions to help their own citizens protect themselves sure as hell aren't going to do you any favors as an outsider if you have to defend yourself while in their shitty state...Fed reciprocity law or no Fed reciprocity law.

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Matt,

A law that says all states SHALL, not 'may,' honor the carry permits issued by other states is therefore a call for federal 'interpretation?'

Really?

I call BS!

From: Gray Ghost
27-Nov-17
No, Kyle, it's a call for federal control, not interpretation. If they control where permit holders can carry, it's likely they'll try to control who is allowed to have permits, and the requirements to get them. Why is that not a logical assumption?

I'm surprised a small government advocate like you doesn't see that.

Matt

From: Owl
27-Nov-17
Federal reciprocity should codify the 2A but, with our corrupt system, it will merely qualify it.

From: Gray Ghost
27-Nov-17
Owl,

I wish I could have said it that succinctly.

For me it comes down to who do I want controlling where, what, and how I carry. The higher those decisions go up the government ladder, the more restrictive they become, every damn time, without fail.

That doesn't just apply to gun rights, either, as most of us know.

Matt

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Matt,

If the language in the law is as short and clear as what I advocate it be, the Feds will have NO wiggle room to create their own language and restrictions.

From: Gray Ghost
28-Nov-17
"If the language in the law is as short and clear as what I advocate it be,....?

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....

Unfortunately, we both know the proposed legislation isn't even close to that concise, and it never will be.

Matt

29-Nov-17

Spike Bull 's Link

30-Nov-17

Spike Bull 's Link
Passed out of committee, headed for a floor vote.

From: Coyote 65
30-Nov-17
If it passes, then I might take the kids to disneyland. Nah I wouldn't as disney would never allow guns on their property.

Terry

From: Annony Mouse
04-Dec-17

Annony Mouse's Link
Keep one's eye on the details...eGoP may bring Obama style controls into the legislation to get Democrat support (See--we can work across the aisle and BOHICA you).

From: Bowbender
04-Dec-17
Contacting my congresscritter and urging him to vote no on its passage. The Feds giveth, the feds taketh away.

From: Gray Ghost
04-Dec-17
Good call Bowbender.

Matt

From: Bowbender
04-Dec-17
Kyle.

"If the language in the law is as short and clear as what I advocate it be, the Feds will have NO wiggle room to create their own language and restrictions."

Please see Owls comments right above your post. Why do the feds need to pass a law, granting us rights we already possess?

From: Coyote 65
04-Dec-17
Cause they don't believe in the constitution like you do.

Terry

From: Michael
05-Dec-17

Michael's Link

From: Gray Ghost
05-Dec-17
Great link, Michael. It's worth coping and pasting in case some don't bother to click on it.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is warning that House Leadership plans to merge Obama-style gun control with national reciprocity for concealed carry. This news comes just days before Rep. Richard Hudson’s (R-NC) national reciprocity legislation, H.R. 38, is supposed to go the House floor for a vote.

Massie explains that the Obama-style gun controls are contained in the “fix-NICS” legislation, the very legislation that House Leadership “plans to merge” with H.R. 38. He used a Facebook post to explain the “fix-NICS” legislation would allow “agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.”

He expounds:

[“Fix-NICS”] encourages administrative agencies, not the courts, to submit more names to a national database that will determine whether you can or can’t obtain a firearm. When President Obama couldn’t get Congress to pass gun control, he implemented a strategy of compelling, through administrative rules, the Veterans Administration and the Social Security Administration to submit lists of veterans and seniors, many of whom never had a day in court, to be included in the NICS database of people prohibited from owning a firearm. Only a state court, a federal (article III) court, or a military court, should ever be able to suspend your rights for any significant period of time.

Massie does not name names, but presumes that some are seeking to add the gun control legislation as a way of “to ensure reciprocity will pass in the Senate.” Yet he believes it is a foolish attempt to gain the support of Senators like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who will not support national reciprocity legislation “even if it contains the fix-NICS legislation they support for expanding the background check database.”

Massie observed, “If our House leadership insists on bringing the flawed fix-NICS bill to the floor, they shouldn’t play games. We should vote separately on HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill, and HR 4477, the fix-NICS bill. And we should be given enough time to amend the fix-NICS bill, because it needs to be fixed, if not axed.”

Matt

From: Michael
05-Dec-17
Thanks Matt. I use my phone the vast majority of the time. So adding links is easy. Cutting and pasting isn’t. Lol

05-Dec-17
Yep, just as we suspected.

From: Bowbender
05-Dec-17

Bowbender's Link
Look at all the sh!t that's been tacked on to it. (HR38). This is a bad bill and needs stopped.

05-Dec-17

Spike Bull 's Link
Tucker Carlson wants to know if the left is ready for the civil war they are starting.

A comment from the article, one of many good ones:

"Simon Battle > P Smith • an hour ago

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

- Noah Webster"

From: Shuteye
05-Dec-17

Shuteye's Link
I haven't read all the links so pardon me if this has already been posted. The democrats are loading up the bill with stuff you won't like.

From: bad karma
05-Dec-17
To be fair, I don't believe these proposed amendments have yet been added to the original bill. But you are right to be concerned.

From: Michael
06-Dec-17

Michael's Link
According to this it made it past the house.

From: JTV
06-Dec-17
just wait, the Senate will either sit on it or screw it up ... the anti-gunners are whining big time over this ....

From: Gray Ghost
06-Dec-17
Thomas Massie (R-KY) was correct. They tacked the fix-NICS bill on to Hr 38. The next step will be full federal gun regulations.

If this passes the Senate, and is signed into law, it will be a sad day for gun rights advocates.

Matt

From: spike78
06-Dec-17
Not sure why the uproar over the fix NICS?

From: Annony Mouse
06-Dec-17
No means of redress if someone is added to the "no buy" list. Remember how the VA and SS were able to remove 2A rights from veterans and social security recipients under Obama's reign? Bureaucratic administrative removal of Constitutional rights.

From: bad karma
06-Dec-17
Spike, the devil in in the details. I'm not one who is enamored with the NCIS list improvements since criminals are perfectly happy to rob liquor stores with stolen guns. This is a scam put upon the American people as an excuse to make it harder for people to qualify to buy a firearm, when the entire idea is flawed.

07-Dec-17
Correct, Anony, and bk. This has nothing to do with enabling our second amendment rights. As usual, this is designed by the globalists to REMOVE our rights while APPEARING to be a good thing so that enough of us will support it that it is too late when we realize, once again, we have been snookered. ("Snookered" used in deference to those who don't like to see "effed".)

07-Dec-17
According to a report this morning, this law will NOT change state and municipal laws about what or where you can carry there.

That means I will have to buy and use ten round max magazines and leave my 17 round mags home when i go 200 yards south into MA among other things.

07-Dec-17
According to a report this morning, this law will NOT change state and municipal laws about what or where you can carry there.

That means I will have to buy and use ten round max magazines and leave my 17 round mags home when i go 200 yards south into MA among other things.

From: Gray Ghost
07-Dec-17
Get on the horn and call your Senators, gentlemen.

This bill reeks of federal overreach. What do you think will happen when a legal carrier from a less restrictive state commits a gun crime in a more restrictive state where the same carrier wouldn't be legal? It doesn't take a genius to answer that. The feds will make gun regulations the same for every state, and they will use the most restrictive state laws as their template.

By giving the feds authority to dictate where we can carry, this bill opens the door for them to dictate who, how, what, and when we can carry. Don't let that happen.

Matt

08-Dec-17

Spike Bull 's Link
Louie Ghomert on his NO vote.

  • Sitka Gear