The Guardian: National Reciprocity Likely

[GIJEW]

Real well. Jim Crow is dead and the South is a decent place to live now, and if you want me to list all the Civil Rights Acts I can and then you can thank Jake and John after each statute I list.



You know, all those rights contained in the Bill of Rights. Weeellll, the Democrats in the South were denying those rights to the Freedmen. Congress sought to extend the Bill of Rights to the States so the South would have to be civilized to Black men.

The civil rights/privileges and immunities that Chief Justice Taney listed a couple of decades before the 14th Amendment are what are to be dictated to the States.

So, the 14A exists so that the feds can make the states recognize the rights (per the BOR) of ALL citizens, but the same BOR doesn't require the feds to do the same?

 

[lonehoosier]

So, the 14A exists so that the feds can make the states recognize the rights (per the BOR) of ALL citizens, but the same BOR doesn't require the feds to do the same?

Yes, it is our job as citizens to make sure that the Feds follow the Bill of Rights and so fair we the citizens have not done a good job.

 

[GIJEW]

Yes, it is our job as citizens to make sure that the Feds follow the Bill of Rights and so fair we the citizens have not done a good job.

Agreed, it's our freedom and our job to protect it (and government is supposed to serve that end). Using peaceful means to turn back gov't over reach is challenging when there are statists in both parties and an entrenched bureauracracy. Given that, I don't think we've done badly in the last 30 years but there sure is more work to be done.

 

[FireBirdDS]

Let's say we succeed, and have National Reciprocity. I still have to wonder how it's going to go down on the ground particularly within deep dark blue cities like LA, NYC, anywhere in NJ, and especially DC. Sure, assuming we have an airtight legislation signed into law, they could not legally charge you with anything that would stick under this new federal law. However, I could imagine a dozen of ways they could make an out of town CCer's life extremely difficult if not a living hell for a few hours, days, maybe weeks. Even if you're legally in the right, you could be forced into a position to have to spend money to clear yourself. Or the local LEO could simply choose to drag what should be a minutes long traffic stop in an hours long ordeal. And I don't even want to imagine actually being involved in a "shots fired" self defense encounter within those places.

 

[ATM]

... Sure, assuming we have an airtight legislation signed into law, they could not legally charge you with anything that would stick under this new federal law...

We already have airtight legislation and it's already the highest law of the land, why would we need something new?

Shouldn't we enforce existing laws by nullifying anything repugnant to them?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We already have airtight legislation and it's already the highest law of the land, why would we need something new?

Shouldn't we enforce existing laws by nullifying anything repugnant to them?

Because we do not have unlimited resources to pay for 50 states of litigation.

The enabling section in the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to coerce those states into line who refuse to follow the Constitution just as in Reconstruction.

Federal legislation is not only constitutional but cheaper and more efficient.

 

[K_W]

Constitutional Carry solves all these problems.

 

[ATM]

Because we do not have unlimited resources to pay for 50 states of litigation.

Who were you going to bribe, the jurists? I think that's frowned upon.

The enabling section in the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to coerce those states into line who refuse to follow the Constitution just as in Reconstruction.

I know how the State coerces: subjection or blood.

Federal legislation is not only constitutional but cheaper and more efficient.

It's no substitute for self-governance, though. They couldn't even deliver the mail cheaper and more efficiently without force.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Who were you going to bribe, the jurists? I think that's frowned upon.

We don't have the money to pay for lawyers in all 57 states to litigate in each state. We won't like the result in every state.

I know how the State coerces: subjection or blood.

That's not how it works, that's not how any of it works.

The 14th Amendment was enacted to stop the South from behaving like little tyrants and like savages. Today the 14th Amendment provides the platform for us to make New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, inter alia behave like civilized people. This is in line with one of the few duties of the federal government in the Constitution--to ensure a republican form of government in the states.

It's no substitute for self-governance, though. They couldn't even deliver the mail cheaper and more efficiently without force.

In 1868 there was no way in hell to make Mississippi behave like a civilized place though "self-governance". In 2016 there is no way to make California behave like a civilized place.

In both instances they must be taught.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Constitutional Carry solves all these problems.

It does not. It still allows New Jersey or Hawaii to prevent the exercise of civil rights.

Oh, btw, you do understand that we have Constitutional Carry on a federal level now? There is no federal general statute as to carrying firearms.

 

[K_W]

It does not. It still allows New Jersey or Hawaii to prevent the exercise of civil rights.

Oh, btw, you do understand that we have Constitutional Carry on a federal level now? There is no federal general statute as to carrying firearms.

Yes is do know about lack of general federal carry statutes, but a Federal Constitutional preemption on state and local carry laws is what I am refering to. We have Heller that affirms nationwide ownership (keeping) of commonly held arms, now we need affirmation on carry (bearing) of arms.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
one of the few duties of the federal government in the Constitution--to ensure a republican form of government in the states.
...

Seems to me that the people of the United States ensured a Republican form of government within the last two weeks...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes is do know about lack of general federal carry statutes, but a Federal Constitutional preemption on state and local carry laws is what I am refering to. We have Heller that affirms nationwide ownership (keeping) of commonly held arms, now we need affirmation on carry (bearing) of arms.

That mechanism to ensure that the states comply with the Second Amendment is the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court is not the sole enforcer of our rights. Time for Congress to do its job and protect our right to bear arms in unenlightened places like Boston and New York City, straight through the Heart of Atlanta.

 

[The Professor]

Isn't it interesting when Federalism is acceptable when it suits our purposes?

This is a State-level issue and should not be addressed by the Federal Government.

I know people will **** and moan, but remember. . .if they can force the states to accept everyone else's CC license, they can do the exact opposite, too.

The Professor

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Isn't it interesting when Federalism is acceptable when it suits our purposes?

This is a State-level issue and should not be addressed by the Federal Government.

I know people will **** and moan, but remember. . .if they can force the states to accept everyone else's CC license, they can do the exact opposite, too.

The Professor

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

 

[HoughMade]

I find Federalism acceptable when the Constitution explicitly says it is.

I'm not interested in deriding the constitution as "not free enough". I'll be satisfied when we actually follow it.

 

[The Professor]

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.

No, we didn't. This is an issue wherein the federal government intends to force, for example, Kalifornia to recognize the Indiana concealed handguns license and vice-versa.

Now, if a Hoosier walks into Kalifornia, he is NOT a citizen of that state. He is a citizen of Indiana.

The citizens of the State of Kalifornia have chosen their representative to set their state laws on handguns to a certain level. This is not necessarily the law, but let's just say, for the sake of argument that Kalifornia requires their citizens to pass not only a background check, but certain classes, including one that requires the citizen to pass a physical manual-of-arms and demonstrate their ability to hit a target. Additionally, they may require the citizen to carry personal liability insurance.

Now, they're faced with recognizing the license of a person who is not only NOT required to answer a single safety question or pass a single test other than verify he/she has no felonies or domestic violence convictions but also is not required to bear any insurance. Indiana is a Shall Issue state. Fill out a form, pay your $$ and a couple of weeks later, you get a shiny, PINK card.

In neither state's case is anyone's rights being violated. For one state, it's citizens have elected officials who set the standards a bit more difficult than the other. Apparently, because the bastards haven't been kicked out, the citizens are comfortable with those rules.

But in both cases, no one's rights have, arguably, been violated. Having someone in Washington mandating that each state recognize all other states' CHL's sounds great. . .but, what if it takes the standards set by our fictional Kalifornia Rules and says now that all states must recognize each other's CHL's as long as those stricter standards are met?

There goes the states' right to set their own standards.

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.

No one's right to keep arms is being brought into question. And, arguably, no one's right to bear them in public is, either, as long as the person abides by the rules set forth by the state in which he/she finds him/herself.

Many will try to draw a correlation between CHL's and a Driver's License. But that won't work, either. It is a legally recognized fact that Driving is a PRIVELEGE, not a constitutionally-recognized right.

Also, understand that I'm not saying it's right or proper. I'm all for what is termed "Constitutional Carry" wherein a person can carry a firearm however, whenever and where-ever he wants, private property notwithstanding. I find it asinine that a law-abiding citizen must pay (and in many cases, do much more) to do what criminals do all the time for free.

My issue is with people who are willing to use the Federal Government as a bully when it suits their goals and purposes and yet, doesn't realize that it's a dual-edged sword.

Yes, I'd love to have my Indiana CHL cover me in all 50 states, but to be honest . . .the only way the Federal government can do so is by Constitutional Amendment. I'm not willing to have a Constitutional Congress convene, even under Trump, to get that to happen. And then, the entire thing will be tied up in courts for years to come.

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

More dangerous words have seldom been spoken.

The Professor

 

[BogWalker]

Full Faith and Credit

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No, we didn't.

Yes, we did have a Civil War. And, a Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then a 14th Amendment.

This is an issue wherein the federal government intends to force, for example, Kalifornia to recognize the Indiana concealed handguns license and vice-versa.

Indiana does not have a concealed handguns license, and, yes, the federal government is constitutionally obligated to do so. Obergefell.

Now, if a Hoosier walks into Kalifornia, he is NOT a citizen of that state. He is a citizen of Indiana.

Who is telling you this?

My civil rights are not determined by what state I am in or where my license comes from. Obergefell.

But in both cases, no one's rights have, arguably, been violated.

I do not believe you understand the Fourteenth Amendment. If I cannot carry a handgun in California, my rights are violated. California must be made to recognize my license. Obergefell.

There goes the states' right to set their own standards.

States are not permitted to set own standards for constitutional rights. Obergefell.

Many will try to draw a correlation between CHL's and a Driver's License. But that won't work, either. It is a legally recognized fact that Driving is a PRIVELEGE, not a constitutionally-recognized right.

The South was not allowed to convert the civil rights of African-Americans into privileges. My right to carry a gun is a constitutional right, a right protected by the 14th Amendment.

As such, states cannot abridge it. If states abridge it then the Constitution mandates that the Federal government correct the states.

In Fact, it is a Federal duty to take action. More dangerous words have seldom been spoken.

Call the Framers of both the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment dangerous if you so desire, but this is how the Constitution functions.

The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government and the Fourteenth Amendment allows the Federal Government to correct the illegal behavior of the states. The Federal government is tasked with protecting our Constitutional rights. Federal legislation is one method.

 

[HKUSP]

The Devil is always in the details. I was talking with a friend about this recently and made this point: National Reciprocity may become a reality but the simple fact that a state like NY might be forced to recognize my IN license will not change their other laws as to HOW a weapon might be carried. Sure, you can have your handgun, but let's check and see how many rounds you have in the magazine. OOPS! that's one too many. Off to jail. NJ and their famous hollowpoint ban is another example.

No matter how reciprocity comes about there will be years of dragging it out and it will be a dangerous environment for the unwary to carry into unfriendly states. Look at the fight states and some cities have put up after Heller or McDonald. Bare-bones compliance with all sorts of hoops and pitfalls. I wouldn't put it past such places to try "well, your gun is ok, but that's not an approved holster, and you're not wearing an out of state carrier hat".

I'm very cynical about being able to carry nationwide and it being applied evenly. I won't work against it, however.

Part of my cynicism is also in watching over the years how SCOTUS decisions are applied and perceived by the media and the general public. Take two big decisions that have a left lean to them. Roe vs Wade comes down and BOOM! that's it. All of your cute little state and local limits are wiped out. Abortions for everyone and it's been 43 years and as a country we're still arguing over the details. Some states seem comfortable with abortion being wide open, and others have tried to limit it and had varying degrees of success.

The Gay marriage decision is an even bigger example. The gavel comes down and 15 minutes after that states where it was illegal the day before are issuing licenses. Full compliance is expected. One county clerk in Kentucky tries to take a stand and she is immediately turned into a pariah and national news story.

It's too bad that civil rights issues take on a lean. Looking at these issues from my Libertarian point of view the Second Amendment should be just as valid, and instantly accepted and applied as the two above mentioned examples. To me a civil right is a civil right. The 2A even has it's own specified place in the constitution where the other two issues had to be read into. A pro 2A decision comes down and then the arguing starts. States and cities have to be dragged back to court time and time again, and are in many instances given lots of extra time to study ways to look like they are complying while really not. It's annoying.

Chris