NV Reciprocity Improving Soon: UT CFP Go; IN Larry No-Go....

[SteveM4A1]

The rationale is simply that State A should not be able to infringe upon the natural, constitutionally protected rights of a citizen from State B. Both State A and State B issue licenses to their residents that allow (*cough, cough*) those residents to exercise their right to bear arms. That right should not arbitrarily end at an imaginary line, especially since both State A and State B recognize the right and provide a means to exercise it.

Hopefully one day we can get there.

 

[CZB1962]

and SCOTUS seems to be leaning toward marriage licenses in any being valid in all.

I thought this was already accepted practice. Are you saying that right now my IN marriage license does not HAVE to be honored in other states? Is this all coming to the courts because of gay marriage?

If so then one has to ask, could the gay rights movement and any ruling in their favor actually help to set the groundwork in place to argue that all state issued licenses (such as out LTCH) should be honored?

 

[Bill of Rights]

The rationale is simply that State A should not be able to infringe upon the natural, constitutionally protected rights of a citizen from State B. Both State A and State B issue licenses to their residents that allow (*cough, cough*) those residents to exercise their right to bear arms. That right should not arbitrarily end at an imaginary line, especially since both State A and State B recognize the right and provide a means to exercise it.

Yes, I got that. The ellipsis (...) was to pause prior to my reply to Kut's post (No.) My apologies for not being more clear in my position.

I thought this was already accepted practice. Are you saying that right now my IN marriage license does not HAVE to be honored in other states? Is this all coming to the courts because of gay marriage?

If so then one has to ask, could the gay rights movement and any ruling in their favor actually help to set the groundwork in place to argue that all state issued licenses (such as out LTCH) should be honored?

This is a tangent from the subject at hand, but to keep this thread from being , I'll answer that yes, a hetero marriage is recognized in all, but not all marriages are hetero. Whatever peoples' feelings and opinions are on that fact, I can't say that those arguments could not work in our favor as well. I still think it's better to handle this state-by-state, educating people so they choose better representation, rather than forcing change on them federally, which the states will then make every attempt to circumvent and drag the fight out for years to come. (example: Illinois)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rhino]

The closest analogy to carry licenses/permits are driver's/vehicle operator's licenses.

The latter are valid in any state, regardless of state of issue. That the former are not already given the same consideration under the law is ridiculous.

 

[88E30M50]

So, make it an option in Indiana, and take the training if ya want the reciprocity.

^^^^THIS^^^^

Add a box to the LTCH that denotes whether training was verified. Other states that require training before reciprocity could make a note that Indiana is acceptible if the training box is checked. Nobody else would be impacted and if you wanted to add a state that requires training, you could attend a class and then submit the proof to the state (with $10 for a new LTCH) and be good to go. If you don't want to do that, then nothing changes for you as compared to today's world.

 

[Kutnupe14]

While I agree with your point, Chip, and the rationale you gave for it, I am left wondering....

Why, Kut? You offer no reasoning or rationale for your objection to federal reciprocity of state issued carry licenses.
As it stands, (and I recognize that these are not new points in the discussion) drivers licenses are recognized as valid in all states if issued by any, and SCOTUS seems to be leaning toward marriage licenses in any being valid in all. As a medic, my license is valid in Indiana, but that recognition is extended in the event of disaster to "anywhere" and if I travel, I don't have to re-do my whole course of education to be licensed in another state, I just have to sit for their test (which I'm eligible to do because of my current license) Similarly, nurses can do likewise to move from state to state. So why would my carry license not be eligible to be considered valid because I've crossed an arbitrary line on a map, if I'm obeying local laws? (by which I mean, specifically, that, to use Utah and Indiana as the example, a Utah permit holder can, while in Utah, carry in K-12 schools, and has been able to do so lawfully for many years. Said person could not do so lawfully here in IN, and must obey those laws, both federal and state, forbidding it, while in Indiana. I also refer to other laws regarding carry, of which we have blessedly few, but which some states include "no carry in banks", "no carry in bars", and "no carry past a certain sign", among.)

So again, Kut, since you object to federal reciprocity of state issued carry licenses/permits/whatever, I have to ask why you so object?

Blessings,
Bill

You're taking away a power from the states and placing in the hands of the feds. If the states get together and create an interstate compact, fine and dandy, but placing that type of power with the feds is ridiculous.

 

[mrortega]

handgulaw.us says that NV only allows reciprocity with:

Alaska
Arkansas
Idaho (Enhanced Only)
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota (Class 1 Only)
Ohio
South Carolina
Tennessee

I didn't read the entire PDF, but I assume that this list will be changing?

I checked that out too since our son lives in AZ and my AZ non-resident isn't accepted in NV anymore. I think I found that none of the states listed offers non-resident licenses. I also tried to find something acceptable for South Carolina and couldn't make it work either.

 

[mrortega]

The closest analogy to carry licenses/permits are driver's/vehicle operator's licenses.

The latter are valid in any state, regardless of state of issue. That the former are not already given the same consideration under the law is ridiculous.

AND, if SCOTUS rules that gay marriage in one state has to be recognized in all others can this be another, stronger step in arguing for all states being required to recognize all other states' licenses to carry? Maybe.

 

[mrortega]

Oops. Didn't read post 43 first.

 

[Kutnupe14]

AND, if SCOTUS rules that gay marriage in one state has to be recognized in all others can this be another, stronger step in arguing for all states being required to recognize all other states' licenses to carry? Maybe.

They potentially could. Hence the glaring problem. While I personally accept gay marriage, I think it should be a state issue.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You're taking away a power from the states and placing in the hands of the feds. If the states get together and create an interstate compact, fine and dandy, but placing that type of power with the feds is ridiculous.

OK, I can see that line of thinking. It seems more that this would be a matter of the fed saying to the states, "You will honor the Constitution as written." On its face, I see no issue with that, but it does show the camel where his nose might fit under that tent.

They potentially could. Hence the glaring problem. While I personally accept gay marriage, I think it should be a state issue.

Holy !

We actually found something on which we agree! Somebody better start looking for the moon to turn red and the sky black as sackcloth...

 

[chipbennett]

You're taking away a power from the states and placing in the hands of the feds. If the states get together and create an interstate compact, fine and dandy, but placing that type of power with the feds is ridiculous.

1. Federally mandated reciprocity would only impact states that issue carry permits to their own residents. (What's that? All 50 states already do? So, where's the objection?)

2. What "power" do the States have to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, when the constitution says that such right shall not be infringed?

3. Some states will NEVER respect RKBA willingly. Look at the de facto won't-issue states: only the rich and politically connected can get carry permits in those states. The average citizen is screwed, and has no recourse to redress a civil right violated. I have no problem with the rest of the country giving those states a big, fat middle finger. Just because New Jersey can violate the civil rights of its own residents with impunity doesn't mean New Jersey should be able to violate the civil rights of non-residents, who are not part of the New Jersey electorate.

4. The fastest way to restore rights in de facto won't-issue states is federally mandated reciprocity. Having non-residents exercising the right to bear arms in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, et al will put extreme political pressure on those states, by residents who see non-residents exercising more liberty than they themselves have.

 

[Light]

I don't agree with a federal license. If the Feds want to mandate that states be shall-issue, I'm all for it. However for a carry license I disagree. Who would be in charge of it? The ATF? They sure love gun owners. Would the president be able to issue executive orders limiting our license? I rather not.

As for training for the license I also disagree. Right now Indiana is still a red state, but that could change in the future. You want a license? We'll we only have one class a month. It's 3 hours away? Too bad. You don't have an obscure gun we use specifically for training? Yours won't do. You aren't accurate enough? Come back next year. Fail training once? Sorry, you're denied for life.

Worse case scenario but the future is unknown. Once you lose part of a right, you'll most likely never get it back.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't agree with a federal license. If the Feds want to mandate that states be shall-issue, I'm all for it. However for a carry license I disagree. Who would be in charge of it? The ATF? They sure love gun owners. Would the president be able to issue executive orders limiting our license? I rather not.

As for training for the license I also disagree. Right now Indiana is still a red state, but that could change in the future. You want a license? We'll we only have one class a month. It's 3 hours away? Too bad. You don't have an obscure gun we use specifically for training? Yours won't do. You aren't accurate enough? Come back next year. Fail training once? Sorry, you're denied for life.

Worse case scenario but the future is unknown. Once you lose part of a right, you'll most likely never get it back.

Federally-mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses has absolutely nothing to do with a federally issued carry license. The two are completely separate matters.

I agree with respect to required training. One, it is limitation on the exercise of the right to bear arms, and as such is an unconstitutional infringement. Two, it is not effective at advancing any sort of government interest, so its social utility is specious.

 

[Dead Duck]

They potentially could. Hence the glaring problem. While I personally accept gay marriage, I think it should be a state issue.

Really?
Congratulations! Who's the lucky groom? Are you registered at Walmart or Bass Pro?

 

[Kutnupe14]

1. Federally mandated reciprocity would only impact states that issue carry permits to their own residents. (What's that? All 50 states already do? So, where's the objection?)

2. What "power" do the States have to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, when the constitution says that such right shall not be infringed?

3. Some states will NEVER respect RKBA willingly. Look at the de facto won't-issue states: only the rich and politically connected can get carry permits in those states. The average citizen is screwed, and has no recourse to redress a civil right violated. I have no problem with the rest of the country giving those states a big, fat middle finger. Just because New Jersey can violate the civil rights of its own residents with impunity doesn't mean New Jersey should be able to violate the civil rights of non-residents, who are not part of the New Jersey electorate.

4. The fastest way to restore rights in de facto won't-issue states is federally mandated reciprocity. Having non-residents exercising the right to bear arms in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, et al will put extreme political pressure on those states, by residents who see non-residents exercising more liberty than they themselves have.

The Founders, I thought were quite clear in the powers they allowed the federal govt to have, and what rights they reserved for the state's. Now we have those that want to flip flop between interpretation and eras so it justifies their position.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Really?
Congratulations! Who's the lucky groom? Are you registered at Walmart or Bass Pro?

I'm registered at Target. I'm way classier than Wal-Mart.

 

[chipbennett]

The Founders, I thought were quite clear in the powers they allowed the federal govt to have, and what rights they reserved for the state's. Now we have those that want to flip flop between interpretation and eras so it justifies their position.

The second amendment doesn't say, "congress shall make no law...". The second amendment doesn't say, "the federal government shall not...".

The second amendment says, "...shall not be infringed."

 

[actaeon277]

The second amendment doesn't say, "congress shall make no law...". The second amendment doesn't say, "the federal government shall not...".

The second amendment says, "...shall not be infringed."

Originally, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were only dealing with the Federal Gov.
In criminal cases brought before the State, you couldn't claim the 5th, unless that state had it in their Constitution.
It's only been over time that the Bill of Rights and amendments has been extended to the States, and then only some.

 

[chipbennett]

Originally, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were only dealing with the Federal Gov.
In criminal cases brought before the State, you couldn't claim the 5th, unless that state had it in their Constitution.
It's only been over time that the Bill of Rights and amendments has been extended to the States, and then only some.

No, the Constitution has always dealt with both the federal government and the several states. The constitution enumerates certain authority to the federal government, and constrains certain authority of the states. The second amendment was written using specific language, for a specific reason. If the founders had intended for the federal government not to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, they would have used phrasing similar to the first amendment, such as, "Congress shall make no law infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms."

Insofar as the obvious, absolute intent of the second amendment was unclear or improperly interpreted, it has already been incorporated, long ago, through the fourteenth amendment. So, in our current state, the second amendment is absolute, and constrains not only the federal government, but also the several states.