Bowsite.com

Matt

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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

The Rock

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.

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

No, it would not!

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.

"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

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

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.

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!

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

Matt

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

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.

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

Terry

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."

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

Terry

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

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

Matt

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