The Guardian: National Reciprocity Likely

[Bill of Rights]

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

Yet.

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.

You vehemently opposed Obamacare, too, and yet, it's law. For now.
Just because fed mandated licensing requirements aren't necessary to implement doesn't mean some rectal orifice (a la Charlie Rangel, below) won't implement them as a "poison pill".

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.

The Hughes Amendment alone illustrates this.
[video=youtube;a6Mx2UcSEvQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ[/video]

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.

Well... we DO have the right. We just don't have permission to do it lawfully. End result is the same, but the right DOES exist. (Somehow, I don't see our Creator granting a right that exists only outside of "sensitive places" or only in certain calibers. Even though God Himself inspired JMB to create the 1911.

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



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.

True. To a government person, SOMEONE has to be in control, some central authority. You can't leave such things to the hoi polloi. It would be anarchy! Anarchy, I tell you! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

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.

I cannot argue against these thoughts.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

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

You tell me.

Did the Civil Rights Acts of 1964/1968 dictate unisex bathrooms?

Well... we DO have the right. We just don't have permission to do it lawfully. End result is the same, but the right DOES exist. (Somehow, I don't see our Creator granting a right that exists only outside of "sensitive places" or only in certain calibers. Even though God Himself inspired JMB to create the 1911.True. To a government person, SOMEONE has to be in control, some central authority.

I said "civil" right. Natural rights are a different issue.

 

[foszoe]

You tell me.

Did the Civil Rights Acts of 1964/1968 dictate unisex bathrooms?

You're the Legal expert!

I don't know much about the legal ramifications of it.

 

[jamil]

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

Yes. There are evermore classes of protected people. In fact, it has been expanded by SCOTUS to include protected behaviors.

 

[T.Lex]

You're the Legal expert!

I don't know much about the legal ramifications of it.

Yes, but I know how much you like researching arcane facts.

Without tracing all the way back to the 14th and 15th amendments, those acts guaranteed that race/creed/religion (that itself was a compromise) and a couple other things were protected from discrimination in housing and voting. Maybe employment, too, although that might've come later.

Speaking of amendments, if everyone is so convinced there are the votes for legislation, I would MUCH prefer a constitutional amendment that protects the right to carry a firearm. That is as close to written in stone, applicable to all the states, as we can get.

(And don't nobody bring up Prohibition. I'm lookin' at you Freeman.)

 

[jamil]

Yes, but I know how much you like researching arcane facts.

Without tracing all the way back to the 14th and 15th amendments, those acts guaranteed that race/creed/religion (that itself was a compromise) and a couple other things were protected from discrimination in housing and voting. Maybe employment, too, although that might've come later.

Speaking of amendments, if everyone is so convinced there are the votes for legislation, I would MUCH prefer a constitutional amendment that protects the right to carry a firearm. That is as close to written in stone, applicable to all the states, as we can get.

(And don't nobody bring up Prohibition. I'm lookin' at you Freeman.)

Hay, you brought it up. I don't think it would be anything like Prohibition. No one really wanted to enact it in the first place. Just dudes thought they wouldn't get any ***** until they did. Then they couldn't wait to repeal it. Even the ***** wanted a drink by that time.

Okay, here's the less sexist version, most people didn't really want prohibition, but a powerful lobby group got it done. It sucked so bad that there was wide support for repealing it. The way public opinion is now, and as hard as the constitution is to amend, it's not likely encoding clear language establishing the right to carry a firearm for protection would be able to get done, at least until the so-called "salt of the earth" dies off. So yeah. I'd rather see a constitutional ammendment than legislation.

 

[2A_Tom]

Reply from Donnely.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding S. 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Like you, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and I have consistently voted to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners.


Whether a gun owner or not, we can all agree that we can take steps to reduce violent crime without sacrificing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I have always recognized that the overwhelming majority of gun owners exercise their Second Amendment rights in a responsible and law-abiding manner. For this reason, I have consistently supported Second Amendment rights, including my long record of support for national recognition of Indiana concealed carry licenses.


As you may know, all fifty states and the District of Columbia allow for individuals to carry concealed handguns if they meet certain criteria. Currently, laws related to concealed carry are enacted at the state level and vary between individual states. Indiana, in addition to issuing carry permits to Hoosiers and certain non-residents, recognizes all carry permits issued by other states. While many states also recognize Indiana permits, 18 states, including Illinois, do not honor carry permits issued by Indiana.


The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act was introduced in the Senate on February 12, 2015. If enacted into law, this bill would authorize an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm and who is entitled by his or her state of residence to carry a concealed handgun to be allowed to carry a concealed handgun in any state, granted he or she possesses a validly issued state permit or, if from a state that does not require a separate permit, a government-issued photo ID. Authorized gun owners who do decide to carry across state lines, however, still will be required to adhere to the respective firearms laws of each state.


Supporters of this legislation argue that the current interstate reciprocity framework for carry permits can hinder their ability to lawfully carry a handgun across state lines while on business or recreational travel. Some opponents of the bill argue that the federal government should not make it easier for individuals to carry concealed handguns across state lines, while others argue that the states are in the best position to ensure the public safety of their citizens and should be allowed to choose which carry permits to honor.


The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As the Senate considers this legislation or other proposals to responsibly improve our gun laws while also protecting the Second Amendment, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.


It is a privilege to represent you and all Hoosiers in the Senate. Your continued correspondence is welcome and helps me to better represent our state. I encourage you to write, call, or email if my office can ever be of assistance. You can also check out my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter by visiting my website.

 

[jamil]

Reply from Donnely.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding S. 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Like you, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and I have consistently voted to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners.


Whether a gun owner or not, we can all agree that we can take steps to reduce violent crime without sacrificing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I have always recognized that the overwhelming majority of gun owners exercise their Second Amendment rights in a responsible and law-abiding manner. For this reason, I have consistently supported Second Amendment rights, including my long record of support for national recognition of Indiana concealed carry licenses.


As you may know, all fifty states and the District of Columbia allow for individuals to carry concealed handguns if they meet certain criteria. Currently, laws related to concealed carry are enacted at the state level and vary between individual states. Indiana, in addition to issuing carry permits to Hoosiers and certain non-residents, recognizes all carry permits issued by other states. While many states also recognize Indiana permits, 18 states, including Illinois, do not honor carry permits issued by Indiana.


The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act was introduced in the Senate on February 12, 2015. If enacted into law, this bill would authorize an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm and who is entitled by his or her state of residence to carry a concealed handgun to be allowed to carry a concealed handgun in any state, granted he or she possesses a validly issued state permit or, if from a state that does not require a separate permit, a government-issued photo ID. Authorized gun owners who do decide to carry across state lines, however, still will be required to adhere to the respective firearms laws of each state.


Supporters of this legislation argue that the current interstate reciprocity framework for carry permits can hinder their ability to lawfully carry a handgun across state lines while on business or recreational travel. Some opponents of the bill argue that the federal government should not make it easier for individuals to carry concealed handguns across state lines, while others argue that the states are in the best position to ensure the public safety of their citizens and should be allowed to choose which carry permits to honor.


The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As the Senate considers this legislation or other proposals to responsibly improve our gun laws while also protecting the Second Amendment, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.


It is a privilege to represent you and all Hoosiers in the Senate. Your continued correspondence is welcome and helps me to better represent our state. I encourage you to write, call, or email if my office can ever be of assistance. You can also check out my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter by visiting my website.

So he's not really committing to anything. Wonder what Todd Young's position is on national reciprocity. Young can be wishywashy sometimes but he's been pretty solid on the 2A.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That's what I got from his reply too, Jamil. I gotta give him props though; he had someone research what our laws are and how many states recognize or refuse to recognize the LTCH. I m neither fond of nor a fan of Donnelly, but credit where credit is due, he made sure some time went into that reply, canned though I'm sure it is.

Blessings,
Bill

So he's not really committing to anything. Wonder what Todd Young's position is on national reciprocity. Young can be wishywashy sometimes but he's been pretty solid on the 2A.

 

[2A_Tom]

Actually I gave him an outline of our State Laws in my e mail.

 

[chipbennett]

Reply from Donnely.

[Form Letter]

My dad has received the same form letter from Donnelly before, and almost-identical ones on other pro-gun legislation-related inquiries.

 

[2A_Tom]

Oh, really. I thought he personally replied to every constituent.

The form letter I am waiting on is Pete Viscloski's, my email to him is always worded more strongly than to the senators. Still his form letters are always polite and disingenuous.

 

[chipbennett]

Oh, really. I thought he personally replied to every constituent.

The form letter I am waiting on is Pete Viscloski's, my email to him is always worded more strongly than to the senators. Still his form letters are always polite and disingenuous.

It is doubtful that he even knows that he's received your email. More than likely, he has staffers who flag each incoming email according to topic, and then send the canned response appropriate for the given topic.

It is almost laughable when the canned response regurgitates exactly what you've already said in your original letter. It makes it obvious that *nobody* actually read the original letter, and they make no effort whatsoever to make it appear that the response fits the inquiry.

And, of course, the canned response is completely non-committal regarding his position/leaning on the issue. The entire thing can be distilled down to, "I will keep your thoughts in mind" - which is equivalent to "I will take that under advisement". It means that your inquiry has already gone to the circular file.

 

[historian]

Having interned for a Representative, I have to tell you, the only way to survive is canned responses.

The best one was the weekly nutter who swore aliens were real.

 

[poppy]

Fox business channel is going to report on this issue within their 9 am segment

 

[actaeon277]

Oh, really. I thought he personally replied to every constituent.

The form letter I am waiting on is Pete Viscloski's, my email to him is always worded more strongly than to the senators. Still his form letters are always polite and disingenuous.

Good old Pete. He'll vote for EVERY anti-gun piece of legislation he can, then tell you how he's doing it to "protect" gun rights.

 

[jamil]

Having interned for a Representative, I have to tell you, the only way to survive is canned responses.

The best one was the weekly nutter who swore aliens were real.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding aliens. As a strong supporter of X Files and I have consistently voted on various legislation that will protect citizens from aliens.

As my office considers various future proposals to effectively deal with aliens, please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind.

It is a privilege to represent you. Your continued correspondence is welcome, and helps me to better represent you. I encourage you to write, call, or email if my office can ever be of assistance. You can also check out my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter by visiting my website.


​

 

[historian]

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding aliens. As a strong supporter of X Files and I have consistently voted on various legislation that will protect citizens from aliens.

As my office considers various future proposals to effectively deal with aliens, please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind.

It is a privilege to represent you. Your continued correspondence is welcome, and helps me to better represent you. I encourage you to write, call, or email if my office can ever be of assistance. You can also check out my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter by visiting my website.


​

Not that far off...