The Guardian: National Reciprocity Likely

[jamil]

Could those that opposed the Civil Rights act be using the same logic that those here saying National Reciprocity is wrong?


I am a simpleton so I think like Trump.


A man is a man he is not 3/5s a man or what ever the slave definition was back then.

For me, a man/woman is entitled to all the same rights so in the Constitution, a document meant to be interpreted, if we decided that a man/woman is a man/woman no matter how the color of their skin, the religion practiced etc should have the exact same rights in all situations. That's how us simpletons/Trump think.

If that can be accomplished why did we need a Civil Rights Act? It seems however, that we couldn't so what made the Civil Rights act necessary?

In a similar vein with the 2A, the wording seems so simple. I thought the Bill of Rights conferred rights to all men. One being the 2A. If the states infringe on these rights then we appeal "all the way to the Supreme Court" where it is decided if the state's restrictions is legitimate. If we can have a 2A rights act, why is it necessarily different from the Civil Rights act in how it works to fix where the past interpretation was incorrect.


Divorced from all the legalese and left with pragmatic thinking that is how it should work, if it doesn't its broken.

Well, wait. If you're talking about those in this thread, I'm not going to speak for them. But for me it's not that I think there shouldn't be national reciprocity. It's that I am apprehensive that it could be used against us. And I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert. I'm not a lawyer. And if a national reciprocity law were written such that it couldn't be used to force some common rules, I'm okay with it. I was just looking at it as, be careful what you wish for, what you get might not be what you wished for.

 

[rhino]

I think we're too scared of remotely potential unintended consequences.

 

[Coach]

I'm not holding my breath. The bill would be tied up in courts until we're pushing up daisies as the states came out blasting.

The supremacy clause says otherwise. The NRA would be ready to fight and the the fight should be short if it happens at all.

 

[Coach]

We had a Civil War about this. The States do not get to violate the civil rights of its citizens. We had the Fourteenth Amendment and then a dozen civil rights acts to make the South behave.

Denying a man a right to vote, or own property, or have a jury trial because of the color of his skin is grounds for Federal involvement.

Denying a man a right to keep and bear arms because he lives in New Jersey or Massachusetts is grounds for Federal involvement.

In Fact, it is a Federal duty to take action.

For further reading: https://www.amazon.com/Freedmen-Fourteenth-Amendment-1866-1876-Literature/dp/0275963314

Amen

 

[Coach]

Is the second amendment not fully incorporated at this time? I believe the answer is yes. MacDonald did that. That means the states do not have the right to ignore the BOR. Folks need to calm down and listen to Kirk on this one. (after all it has nothing to do with blue guns)

We need the right to carry in all states. Lives will be saved as a result. If Trump makes this happen this will elevate him to high status indeed. Is there room for one more head on Mt. Rushmore?

To BOR:
I like your spirit with the unintended consequence of quotas. This next statement may seem cold. But the number of lives the 14th amendment has saved makes the number of lives lost to quotas pale in comparison. I would also state that quotas were and over-reach and way out of line.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I think we're too scared of remotely potential unintended consequences.

Beaten Gun Owner Syndrome.

Be not afraid of victory. Now is the time and the time is to get paid.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
To BOR:
I like your spirit with the unintended consequence of quotas. This next statement may seem cold. But the number of lives the 14th amendment has saved makes the number of lives lost to quotas pale in comparison. I would also state that quotas were and over-reach and way out of line.

Kirk asked for an unintended consequence, and I provided one. Your statement is not cold at all, but I do question what you mean. I'm speaking of the Civil Rights Act, which led to the quotas, not of the 14A as a whole. I am not sure that the quotas and other consequences of inferiorly qualified people obtaining jobs for which they were not suited have not caused substantial deaths.
If we're talking about a Kimbo Slice and a Brock Lesner, both in competition for a physically demanding job, fine. Both are physically capable of it, and if race is an issue, it should be addressed (in court) by whoever was wronged. I don't want to see anyone five foot nothing and 100 pounds soaking wet get a fire or police job solely on the basis of skin color or which side their shirts button from, when a better candidate is present, but not of the "correct" demographic. As to federally mandating reciprocity, yeah, I think it's going to mean that states like Indiana will be given the standard "You lose federal highway funds if you don't _________" to bring us into the fold, and we'll end up restricted from carry in places we can now, just because some numbnuts in an office somewhere thought it was a keen idea.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Coach]

Kirk asked for an unintended consequence, and I provided one. Your statement is not cold at all, but I do question what you mean. I'm speaking of the Civil Rights Act, which led to the quotas, not of the 14A as a whole. I am not sure that the quotas and other consequences of inferiorly qualified people obtaining jobs for which they were not suited have not caused substantial deaths.
If we're talking about a Kimbo Slice and a Brock Lesner, both in competition for a physically demanding job, fine. Both are physically capable of it, and if race is an issue, it should be addressed (in court) by whoever was wronged. I don't want to see anyone five foot nothing and 100 pounds soaking wet get a fire or police job solely on the basis of skin color or which side their shirts button from, when a better candidate is present, but not of the "correct" demographic. As to federally mandating reciprocity, yeah, I think it's going to mean that states like Indiana will be given the standard "You lose federal highway funds if you don't _________" to bring us into the fold, and we'll end up restricted from carry in places we can now, just because some numbnuts in an office somewhere thought it was a keen idea.

Blessings,
Bill

Bud Light and I have been sparring way too long at this point to be posting on the web. Quotas suck. I agree 100% with you on that. What I meant to say earlier was that quotas were and over reach and never should have been SOP. That can be avoided in the future with things like we are talking about.

 

[T.Lex]

Beaten Gun Owner Syndrome.

Be not afraid of victory. Now is the time and the time is to get paid.

We're really just talking about different paths to victory.

With the evolution of states first to carry permits, and then to constitutional carry, we are already winning. If the past is prologue, the states THEMSELVES are moving the direction we want, in a way that we want it - preservation of states rights.

We won't NEED federal involvement.

Congressional action might be a bridge too far, both in terms of practical effect and long-term survivability.

Can someone come up with an area where the feds have gotten involved AND maintained the discipline of the original legislation? I can't think of an area. The ACA may be an example of deregulation (if it happens). The airline deregulation might be an example, but it wasn't really deregulation at all - the FAA still controls lots of minutiae.

Radio licenses went from deconfliction of signals to content regulation.

So on, and so on.

 

[historian]

My

IANAL.

I would much rather see this fully pushed through SCOTUS rather than through regulation. If SCOTUS has fully spoken and eliminated all undue restrictions on gun ownership (still leaving in place the rights of states to have some regulatory areas, but not extreme to the point of preventing people from having the right), and a state refuses to comply, then Congress should step in. I would like to see someone push through carry license concept per Obergefell, mandating that other states must recognize my right to carry (just as they have to recognize my marriage). This, IMHO, is a much better attack line with fewer attacks available.

 

[T.Lex]

BTW, @kirk - you've been an evasive idealist about parts of this.

What would your national reciprocity look like and how would you prevent federal creepage on the topic?

 

[jamil]

My

IANAL.

I would much rather see this fully pushed through SCOTUS rather than through regulation. If SCOTUS has fully spoken and eliminated all undue restrictions on gun ownership (still leaving in place the rights of states to have some regulatory areas, but not extreme to the point of preventing people from having the right), and a state refuses to comply, then Congress should step in. I would like to see someone push through carry license concept per Obergefell, mandating that other states must recognize my right to carry (just as they have to recognize my marriage). This, IMHO, is a much better attack line with fewer attacks available.

If it's done through the courts, it'll tend to be more permanent.

 

[Bill of Rights]

While I fear the overreach that you mentioned, I do agree with Kirk that HI, CA, NY, and the other DPRs will never move to recognize other permission slips without something making them do so. I don't see their people who think anywhere close to as we do having the power to overcome the liberal entrenchments in those places.

Since we know that people of a given mindset, told to do something they don't want to do respond with (essentially) "Or what?", I am curious as to what sanctions can be emplaced on those who refuse? That is to say, if the CA legislature and/or governor refuse to pass reciprocity, and someone actually manages to obtain a judgment against them, so what? The payment of that judgment comes from the people who are harmed, not from those who did the harm! Is there a way to make those politicians who vote against it, or if a voice vote, all of them, personally responsible for their own actions, just as a doctor who doesn't carry malpractice insurance is personally responsible for the payment of any lawsuit he loses?

Blessings,
Bill

We're really just talking about different paths to victory.

With the evolution of states first to carry permits, and then to constitutional carry, we are already winning. If the past is prologue, the states THEMSELVES are moving the direction we want, in a way that we want it - preservation of states rights.

We won't NEED federal involvement.

Congressional action might be a bridge too far, both in terms of practical effect and long-term survivability.

Can someone come up with an area where the feds have gotten involved AND maintained the discipline of the original legislation? I can't think of an area. The ACA may be an example of deregulation (if it happens). The airline deregulation might be an example, but it wasn't really deregulation at all - the FAA still controls lots of minutiae.

Radio licenses went from deconfliction of signals to content regulation.

So on, and so on.

 

[T.Lex]

While I fear the overreach that you mentioned, I do agree with Kirk that HI, CA, NY, and the other DPRs will never move to recognize other permission slips without something making them do so. I don't see their people who think anywhere close to as we do having the power to overcome the liberal entrenchments in those places.

So, I have a 2-fold response to that:
1) Did you ever think you'd see Illinois have broad issuance of carry permits? They are certainly close to that, if not already there. Reciprocity is not far behind. The momentum is moving that way across the country. I think you've even posted the graphic that illustrates it.

2) Related, SCOTUS (without an HRC administration) looks like it will be Heller-friendly. So, there is hope that there will be judicial fiat in the direction we want.

Why invite the vampire into the house when the evening is just getting fun?

Since we know that people of a given mindset, told to do something they don't want to do respond with (essentially) "Or what?", I am curious as to what sanctions can be emplaced on those who refuse? That is to say, if the CA legislature and/or governor refuse to pass reciprocity, and someone actually manages to obtain a judgment against them, so what? The payment of that judgment comes from the people who are harmed, not from those who did the harm! Is there a way to make those politicians who vote against it, or if a voice vote, all of them, personally responsible for their own actions, just as a doctor who doesn't carry malpractice insurance is personally responsible for the payment of any lawsuit he loses?

Generally, you are correct. There have been some "personal liability" style laws passed, but also corresponding indemnification rules/laws that allow for the public entity to indemnify the elected or appointed official. There is also insurance for these kinds of things.

The idea of liability for a vote "against" something is going to be very difficult to draft and enforce.

But, basically, if a government entity is sued, it looks to tax revenue (general fund) to pay the liability. And the lawyers.

Of note, the proposed legislation up-thread did not appear to have any real enforcement mechanism at all.

For federal legislation to impose liability on a state, the language has to be very specific, and will be litigated.

 

[chipbennett]

T.Lex, if Peruta survives in California, then I will share a bit of your optimism. But, at present, it doesn't look likely. And absent Peruta, states like California can continue their intentional, de facto prohibition of the carrying of firearms.

 

[T.Lex]

T.Lex, if Peruta survives in California, then I will share a bit of your optimism. But, at present, it doesn't look likely. And absent Peruta, states like California can continue their intentional, de facto prohibition of the carrying of firearms.

And that is their choice.

Just like I wouldn't want Ohio telling us to require training.

Another scenario - once there's nationally-imposed reciprocity, with standardized standards, how much later will the national permit come? Shift the entire bureaucracy to the federal level, including lists of people on lists.

 

[chipbennett]

And that is their choice.

That's the problem: no, it most certainly isn't their choice. Not constitutionally, legally, or morally. States don't have the authority to deny their citizens constitutionally protected, civil rights.

Just like I wouldn't want Ohio telling us to require training.

How could Ohio do that? And, more to the point: how would federally mandated reciprocity give Ohio (or the fed.gov) the authority to do that?

Another scenario - once there's nationally-imposed reciprocity, with standardized standards, how much later will the national permit come? Shift the entire bureaucracy to the federal level, including lists of people on lists.

When did we cross that bridge? It has nothing to do with federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses.

To be very clear: federally mandated licensing standards are something entirely different from federally mandated reciprocity, and are something that I'm fairly certain most supporters of the latter (me included) would vehemently oppose. Also, there is no reason whatsoever that federally mandated licensing requirements are necessary in order to implement (much less, a logical/inevitable outcome of) federally mandated reciprocity.

 

[jamil]

That's the problem: no, it most certainly isn't their choice. Not constitutionally, legally, or morally. States don't have the authority to deny their citizens constitutionally protected, civil rights.



How could Ohio do that? And, more to the point: how would federally mandated reciprocity give Ohio (or the fed.gov) the authority to do that?



When did we cross that bridge? It has nothing to do with federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses.

To be very clear: federally mandated licensing standards are something entirely different from federally mandated reciprocity, and are something that I'm fairly certain most supporters of the latter (me included) would vehemently oppose. Also, there is no reason whatsoever that federally mandated licensing requirements are necessary in order to implement (much less, a logical/inevitable outcome of) federally mandated reciprocity.

Even though Republicans have control of two branches, and likely will have control of the third, never underestimate the willingness of Republicans to compromise under pressure. If having a law passed with the words "national reciprocity" in the name of the bill, is seen as advantageous, it doesn't matter what the bill actually does. There is another side fighting this. Look at the compromises made for the "Firearm Owners Protection Act". I'm not sure I'd call that a victory without negative consequences.

 

[T.Lex]

That's the problem: no, it most certainly isn't their choice. Not constitutionally, legally, or morally. States don't have the authority to deny their citizens constitutionally protected, civil rights.

Au contraire, mon ami, denial of reciprocity is constitutional, legal, and arguably moral. (Not that the law has any real connection to morality.)

We have a civil right to own a firearm. We do not have an absolute civil right to carry a firearm anywhere we want in any manner we want. It would be nice if we did. But we don't.

How could Ohio do that? And, more to the point: how would federally mandated reciprocity give Ohio (or the fed.gov) the authority to do that?

When did we cross that bridge? It has nothing to do with federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses.

You are de-linking things that will naturally and politically remain linked.

To be very clear: federally mandated licensing standards are something entirely different from federally mandated reciprocity, and are something that I'm fairly certain most supporters of the latter (me included) would vehemently oppose.

I'm willing to have a good-natured bet that you are wrong about 2A supporters in Washington. The political engineers, even the NRA A+ endorsed ones, will fall into 2 camps: either allow states relatively unfettered authority to regulate the terms of extra-jurisdictional reciprocity or mandate standards for states to enact to allow their permits to fall into national reciprocity. There really won't be a middle ground.

The proposed bills up-thread fell into the former group.

Also, there is no reason whatsoever that federally mandated licensing requirements are necessary in order to implement (much less, a logical/inevitable outcome of) federally mandated reciprocity.

As a political calculus, it is both logical and (in my experience) inevitable.

The debates on such an act will encompass all of these things, and probably some things I am not creative enough to anticipate.

 

[foszoe]

BTW, @kirk - you've been an evasive idealist about parts of this.

What would your national reciprocity look like and how would you prevent federal creepage on the topic?

Have the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s allowed federal creepage?