National concealed carry reciprocity legislation

[roscott]

To what end?

I would count legal carry reciprocity as progress, both because I like to legally carry, and because it would help change hearts and minds. People, for better or worse, tend to equate legal with morally acceptable. (Just ask an Australian what they think of gun ownership.) If we can get legal reciprocity, I think we'll change lots of minds in places that previously were anti-carry. It certainly worked for the cannabis crowd.

 

[ATM]

Wow, I certainly can't see this as an intrusion into our rights...

They rarely frame it as such, that wouldn't be very appealing.

 

[ATM]

I would count legal carry reciprocity as progress, both because I like to legally carry, and because it would help change hearts and minds. People, for better or worse, tend to equate legal with morally acceptable. (Just ask an Australian what they think of gun ownership.) If we can get legal reciprocity, I think we'll change lots of minds in places that previously were anti-carry. It certainly worked for the cannabis crowd.

That's some pretty small beans considering what's at stake. You even hinted at it.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

without re-reading everything I think I remember the question of states with strict gun control laws, could they go to another state and get a license, then carry in their own state (say a "may issue" state like Cali):

National Reciprocity Bill Will Apply to Non-Resident Gun Carry Permits

 

[msalaz21]

I live close to and constantly travel to Chicago and would like the ability to have my firearm with me when i have to travel up there. hope this goes through

 

[lonehoosier]

I live close to and constantly travel to Chicago and would like the ability to have my firearm with me when i have to travel up there. hope this goes through

You may want to check this out. Firearm Concealed Carry Act

 

[DNS]

What about IN where the federal gov. does not recognize IN permits as an exception to the federal back ground check. Will IN ccw permits even be recognized without getting some new type permit?

 

[LarryC]

What about the precedent of the Fed being involved in our right to carry. What happens the next time the pendulum swings and the Dems have control of Washington again? Do we end up with a new Federal license with requirements along the lines of NY and California?

In my view, what this proposes is that a State may not infringe on our constitutional rights. I don't interpret this as anything to do with the Feds setting up any standards for constitutional carry. In fact they propose to prohibit ANY state from infringing on that right! Under the current laws it is possible for a state such as IL or Commiefornia to set up laws which may put an innocent citizen in jail if they do not know and follow the rules of that state.

 

[LarryC]

I have a problem with any law purporting to provide law-abiding citizens any right. That's just absurd.

This is a link to a text copy of this proposal: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th...oncealed+Carry+Reciprocity+Act+of+2017"]}&r=1

In order to insure our rights, there are a lot of precedents where federal law had to be written ~ often leading to states objections and eventually to the Supreme court in order to make the right definable. Then the offending states have to bend to the Constitution of the people. Segregation, busing, Free speech, right to assemble etc. all were challenged by states and required the Supreme Court to define the rights.

Do you think Ill, Ca, NY, and other liberal states will ever be convinced by our "voices", Hexx no. It will take a Federal law and a finding by the Supreme Court to force them to comply to the Constitution. Personally I see no other path, and would welcome passage of this law. Unfortunately I doubt it does.

 

[GIJEW]

https://hudson.house.gov/uploads/Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.pdf

I LIKE THIS BILL! What I read, skimming through it, was a basic requirement that any state recognize an out of state LTCH/CCW--or driver's license for those states with Constitutional carry--and the legal penalties for any individuals and/or gov't entities that violate the license holder's rights. What one would expect given the Constitutional req. for states to recognize each other's official acts, let alone the 2A and Heller decision.

I didn't see anything about Federal standards for getting a license. The only mention I saw of the feds (aside from court) is that this statute will apply to USPS, BLM, and army corp of engineers.

We'll need to get IN to be either a Constitutional carry state or start putting photos on LTCH's in order to meet the statute's language but both of those are doable.

The main concern, like with anything being extruded through gov't, is what the bill will actually say when it finally comes up for a vote but this current bill deserves unified support

 

[KLB]

https://hudson.house.gov/uploads/Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.pdf

I LIKE THIS BILL! What I read, skimming through it, was a basic requirement that any state recognize an out of state LTCH/CCW--or driver's license for those states with Constitutional carry--and the legal penalties for any individuals and/or gov't entities that violate the license holder's rights. What one would expect given the Constitutional req. for states to recognize each other's official acts, let alone the 2A and Heller decision.

I didn't see anything about Federal standards for getting a license. The only mention I saw of the feds (aside from court) is that this statute will apply to USPS, BLM, and army corp of engineers.

We'll need to get IN to be either a Constitutional carry state or start putting photos on LTCH's in order to meet the statute's language but both of those are doable.

The main concern, like with anything being extruded through gov't, is what the bill will actually say when it finally comes up for a vote but this current bill deserves unified support

The issue is not that this bill sets standards for national carry. The issue is that it sets the precedent for the fed to meddle in it. As I stated before, what happens the next time the other side has control?

 

[T.Lex]

The issue is not that this bill sets standards for national carry. The issue is that it sets the precedent for the fed to meddle in it. As I stated before, what happens the next time the other side has control?

+1

Isn't there another thread about this?

 

[KLB]

This is a link to a text copy of this proposal: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th...oncealed+Carry+Reciprocity+Act+of+2017"]}&r=1

In order to insure our rights, there are a lot of precedents where federal law had to be written ~ often leading to states objections and eventually to the Supreme court in order to make the right definable. Then the offending states have to bend to the Constitution of the people. Segregation, busing, Free speech, right to assemble etc. all were challenged by states and required the Supreme Court to define the rights.

Do you think Ill, Ca, NY, and other liberal states will ever be convinced by our "voices", Hexx no. It will take a Federal law and a finding by the Supreme Court to force them to comply to the Constitution. Personally I see no other path, and would welcome passage of this law. Unfortunately I doubt it does.

I think you have too much faith in the government. Whenever the fed gets involved in things, they tend to only get worse.

 

[88E30M50]

The thing that makes me uncomfortable with new law being created is that laws can be altered and twisted to meet the goals of whomever has the political power to do so. I would be much happier to see the Supreme Court affirm that Constitutionally protected rights do not stop at state borders and that the legal findings in one state still apply in other states. That would mean that each state can still have their own CC license program for their own citizens, but that they could not deny the rights of citizens from other states. The fact that this works for a drivers license even though there is no Constitutional guaranteed right to drive makes me think that it should be a no-brainer for carry rights. In other words, if CA has a CC license, then anyone visiting CA would have their own license respected in the same way that a Hoosier can drive in CA as long as they obey CA laws.

A Supreme Court ruling that the legal findings and judgement of one state apply in all states would go a long way towards giving us reciprocity without creating easily subverted laws to do so. If the Indiana State Police have found me to be a proper person, that finding should be just as correct when I'm traveling outside of IN and should hold the same weight as any other state's determination of proper status. This is already in place in states that support Constitutional Carry. If a CA felon visits Vermont, they are no more allowed to carry a gun than they would be in CA because VT recognizes CA's legal finding of a person's guilt in a felony conviction.

 

[GIJEW]

The issue is not that this bill sets standards for national carry. The issue is that it sets the precedent for the fed to meddle in it. As I stated before, what happens the next time the other side has control?

As I see it, the states are obligated by the Constitution to recognize both the people's RKBA and the official acts of other states. All this bill seems to do is hold them to that. to the extent that there is Federal "meddling", it's limited to suing gov't officials in federal court for violating your rights.

As for that next time, the Constitutional principles haven't changed. I guess they can try to pack the courts or amend the Constitution...no, that's too hard, they'll just pack the courts with judges who will say that the Constitution doesn't say what it says--but they were going to do that anyway.

 

[chipbennett]

“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits"


BS.

The second amendment is a restriction placed upon the federal government by the States. It is not a request for permission or a grant of rights. Rights are not "granted" by state.

No. The second amendment is a restriction placed upon the government, by the people.

The states are bound by the enumerated and restricted powers in the constitution. There is no "federal government" caveat anywhere in the second amendment. If that wasn't clear from the beginning, the fourteenth amendment made it clear. And for those who were truly obtuse, MacDonald v City of Chicago made it explicit.

Nothing good will be gained by nationalizing reciprocity.

Lots of good can and will come through federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses. I look forward to the residents of Iron Curtain states all but revolting when non-residents demonstrate more freedom to exercise the right to bear arms in their own state than they themselves have.

Leave it to the States.

How well will that work out for the Iron Curtain states?

There are pros and cons. Yeah, states should have final authority, but if we keep it that way, it'll never happen that we can carry anywhere, like we should be able to. You'll always have strongholds of liberal BS like CA and NY. I'm all for constitutional carry and/or national reciprocity pushed by whoever can do it.

There is no "federal government" caveat in the second amendment. The prohibition against infringement of the right to bear arms applies to all levels of government subordinate to the constitution.

What about the precedent of the Fed being involved in our right to carry. What happens the next time the pendulum swings and the Dems have control of Washington again? Do we end up with a new Federal license with requirements along the lines of NY and California?

The federal government doesn't involve itself in the right to carry through federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses. The licensure takes place at the state level, under requirements and processes defined by the states. All federally mandated reciprocity does is force State A to honor the resident carry license issued to a person from State B, if State A issues carry licenses to its own residents (which is every state, except for constitutional carry states).

Will there be a training requirement?

Why would federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued carry licenses involve a "training requirement"?

 

[chipbennett]

What about IN where the federal gov. does not recognize IN permits as an exception to the federal back ground check. Will IN ccw permits even be recognized without getting some new type permit?

Why would the federal government "recognizing" (or not) Indiana's LTCH (or, fingers crossed, the Indiana Reciprocity License after HB 1159 passes) have to do with federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses?

We'll need to get IN to be either a Constitutional carry state or start putting photos on LTCH's in order to meet the statute's language but both of those are doable.

Why would Indiana's LTCH need to have a photo, as a result of federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses?

The issue is not that this bill sets standards for national carry. The issue is that it sets the precedent for the fed to meddle in it. As I stated before, what happens the next time the other side has control?

Federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses does not represent the federal government involving itself with licensing requirements. The authority of states to determine the requirements and procedures for issuing carry licenses is not impacted by federally mandated reciprocity.

The thing that makes me uncomfortable with new law being created is that laws can be altered and twisted to meet the goals of whomever has the political power to do so.

Such legislation would be completely different from, and unrelated to, legislation for federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses.

Reciprocity is a matter of equal protection and (perhaps thanks to Obergefell) full faith and credit. If a state does not issue its own residents carry licenses, then it does not have to honor any other state's resident carry licenses. The federal government forcing licensing requirements or standards would be an entirely different issue, and one that would very clearly run afoul of the second amendment.

I would be much happier to see the Supreme Court affirm that Constitutionally protected rights do not stop at state borders and that the legal findings in one state still apply in other states.

Federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses will actually present more opportunities to force SCOTUS to resolve the issue. When Iron Curtain states ignore the federal law, both the individual injured by state action, and the state of which that individual is a resident, would have standing to sue the offending state, possibly directly to SCOTUS (if it is a matter of a state suing another state).

 

[ATM]

Why not just nullify attempted infringements of the people's RKBA?

Why all this ridiculous reciprocity activity of merely recognizing various exceptions while allowing the infringements to stand and be enforced?

 

[T.Lex]

Why not just nullify attempted infringements of the people's RKBA?

Why all this ridiculous reciprocity activity of merely recognizing various exceptions while allowing the infringements to stand and be enforced?

You know, it might just be that simple.

Create a statutory private right of action for perceived infringements of the 2A. Let the courts sort out what is and isn't. Like 1A. But, it isn't one-size-fits-all.

 

[chipbennett]

Why not just nullify attempted infringements of the people's RKBA?

Why all this ridiculous reciprocity activity of merely recognizing various exceptions while allowing the infringements to stand and be enforced?

Because there are two strategies:

1. Assert that the second amendment is absolute and unambiguous, and stomp feet at the Iron Curtain states, while screaming, "Muh Rights!"

2. Accept the current landscape as it is, and accept that the perfect (national, constitutional carry, uninfringed by state laws) is the enemy of the good (in this case, using the federal government to force Iron Curtain states to stop infringing upon the rights of non-residents)

The latter approach has brought us from where we were around the time of my birth (few carry rights, anywhere), to where we are today (every state has at least a modicum of respect of RKBA, a dozen states are constitutional carry, most of the rest have shall-issue licensing - almost all of the latter two groups honor each others' licenses in some form or another - and then there is the block of Obama/Clinton Iron Curtain states).

The latter approach is the most expedient, and likely most effective, way to force the remaining Iron Curtain states to stop infringing upon RKBA.