The Guardian: National Reciprocity Likely

[gregr]

I get that the states rights must be respected and all, but, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right, and not even the states may supersede this.

 

[caverjamie]

Oh yes, it's time California was forced to acknowledge my right to carry. Muhahahah. Love the Sierra Nevada mountains, hate the politics.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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.

That is why federal preemption is important.

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.

Why do you think this will take years???

Look at the fight states and some cities have put up after Heller or McDonald.

What states and cities ban handguns in defiance of Heller/McDonald?

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".

Again, federal preemption.

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.

Yes, that is how it works. The feds tell you to jump and the proper response is to ask how high.

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.

What civil right is "instantly accepted"? Are you aware of the South's behavior? It went on for many, many decades until the Feds forced them to behave.

Do you think Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia turned on a dime in April of 1865 and decided to stop savaging Black people? Do you think South Carolina "instantly accepted" the civil rights of African-Americans?

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.

This is why the Constitution permits Congress to address these civil rights violations with federal legislation.

If you have not read any of Halbrook's work on the RKBA and the 14th, I urge you to read this as a beginning: Securing Civil Rights: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms

 

[ATM]

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.

Jurists are free.

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

Force is not how it works? Not how any of it works? Government is force.

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.

Big tyrants don't allow little tyrants and svages? Yes they do, until there is some question of who gets the final say.

They don't care if you're civilized or not, so long as you're subjugated.

I don't think anyone calling the shots really cares about a republican form of government. Nice words, though, good for an excuse.

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.

Under our current system, there is only force from the top. As the U.S. is far from self-governance and wouldn't allow the practice of such within its borders, your statements can be comprehended as both correct and absurd.

In both instances they must be taught.

We finally agree.

You think the states must be 'taught' with federal threats of force.

I think the people must be truly taught the power and duty of the jury box.

 

[ATM]

...Yes, that is how it works. The feds tell you to jump and the proper response is to ask how high...

Some days, it seems that you and I don't even speak the same language.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Jurists are free.

Litigation is not free. Your insipid idea of litigating in all 57 states would bankruptcy any organization.

Big tyrants don't allow little tyrants and svages?

The Federal government when acting to protect civil rights is exercising one of its few valid functions.

The Federal government did not allow Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia, among others to behave like savages.

We must not allow New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts to behave like savages.

Under our current system, there is only force from the top.

Under the current system there is no one forcing the monsters in California and New York from stopping their attacks on the civil rights of those there. Congress must exercise its constitutional duty to prohibit these civil rights violations.

We finally agree.

You think the states must be 'taught' with federal threats of force.

I think the people must be truly taught the power and duty of the jury box.

Nothing wrong with education, but tell me this, how effective would education be to the Jim Crow South without Congress yanking them back into line?

I'd love to listen as to how African-Americans could exercise the power of the jury box when they could not serve on juries. Similar to today.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Some days, it seems that you and I don't even speak the same language.

Because I advocate following the Constitution, including the INGO-hated Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment?

If one advocates education, perhaps one should read the Constitution? All of it, just not the parts one likes.

 

[ATM]

Litigation is not free. Your insipid idea of litigating in all 57 states would bankruptcy any organization.

That was your insipid false dichotomy, certainly not any idea of mine. I said jurists are free.

The Federal government when acting to protect civil rights is exercising one of its few valid functions.

Is there anything that's not been redefined a civil right at this point?

The Federal government did not allow Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia, among others to behave like savages.

We must not allow New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts to behave like savages.

Savage is fine when it suits the top savages, not fine when it strays from the overall plan.

Under the current system there is no one forcing the monsters in California and New York from stopping their attacks on the civil rights of those there. Congress must exercise its constitutional duty to prohibit these civil rights violations.

Force will be justified or withheld according to the overall plan, don't you worry about that.

Nothing wrong with education, but tell me this, how effective would education be to the Jim Crow South without Congress yanking them back into line?

Congress doesn't yank anyone back into line. Congress sits in D.C. and issues edicts.

I'd love to listen as to how African-Americans could exercise the power of the jury box when they could not serve on juries. Similar to today.

When the jury box is not available, one explores other boxes until availability is regained. Is the jury box available now? If so, why not make use of it now?

 

[ATM]

Because I advocate following the Constitution, including the INGO-hated Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment?

Have you considered that it might be because you suggested that it is proper to ask how high when commanded to jump?

If one advocates education, perhaps one should read the Constitution? All of it, just not the parts one likes.

If one advocates justice, perhaps one should be educated as to what it is and what a citizen's role in ensuring that it is served might entail.

 

[jamil]

As always, the devil's in the details. The 10th Amendment side of me wants to reject this. I know it's popular among many and I certainly would take advantage of it should it pass. I'm too cynical, I know, but I'm skeptical.

While I would like the freedom to carry in any state, I agree this may not be the way to do it. I'm afraid it could open a new channel of control through conformity. What will the AAMVA of carry licenses be? And, no mistake. There WILL be one.

 

[chipbennett]

While I would like the freedom to carry in any state, I agree this may not be the way to do it. I'm afraid it could open a new channel of control through conformity. What will the AAMVA of carry licenses be? And, no mistake. There WILL be one.

Is there an AAMVA analog for marriage licenses?

By the way, the second amendment is explicit, and applies to all levels of government subordinate to the constitution (that would be: ALL levels of government). Nowhere does the second amendment say that its scope is the federal government (see: first amendment). Thus, the 10th amendment argument is invalid:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And since that point wasn't explicit enough, we had to go and pass the 14th amendment. And since that STILL wasn't enough, we had to have SCOTUS explicitly incorporate the second amendment, via McDonald v. Chicago.

The second amendment applies to the States. Always. Again. Still.

 

[jamil]

Is there an AAMVA analog for marriage licenses?

By the way, the second amendment is explicit, and applies to all levels of government subordinate to the constitution (that would be: ALL levels of government). Nowhere does the second amendment say that its scope is the federal government (see: first amendment). Thus, the 10th amendment argument is invalid:



And since that point wasn't explicit enough, we had to go and pass the 14th amendment. And since that STILL wasn't enough, we had to have SCOTUS explicitly incorporate the second amendment, via McDonald v. Chicago.

The second amendment applies to the States. Always. Again. Still.

If the constitution mattered all that much we wouldn't need a law establishing reciprocity. As for marriage licences up until recently there hasn't been much cause to regulate them all that much. Driving has been a heavily regulated activity. So has firearms ownership and use. I don't see a Trump administration doing much to prevent an association of state level regulators establishing standards for each state's carry license.

 

[chipbennett]

If the constitution mattered all that much we wouldn't need a law establishing reciprocity. As for marriage licences up until recently there hasn't been much cause to regulate them all that much. Driving has been a heavily regulated activity. So has firearms ownership and use. I don't see a Trump administration doing much to prevent an association of state level regulators establishing standards for each state's carry license.

And therein lies the rub: in many states, RKBA is enshrined in state constitutions, and in state statute that establishes preemption. There will be no opportunity or authority of state-level regulators to establish such standards.

Driving is pretty much explicitly defined as a state-regulated activity. Likewise with the issuance of marriage licenses. They are distinct from RKBA in this regard.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That was your insipid false dichotomy, certainly not any idea of mine. I said jurists are free.

It is your idea. Your notion of having jury trials in all states will only lead to bankruptcy. The notion that gun owners will be on juries in New York, Illinois or California demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the terrain that you will be fighting upon.

Is there anything that's not been redefined a civil right at this point?

Yes. However, the right to bear arms is one of the rights that Taney listed in his parade of horribles and explicity one of the rights that Howard listed for the Fourteenth Amendment.

Force will be justified or withheld according to the overall plan, don't you worry about that.

I am speaking of the force of the Federal government to be used against the States that get out of line just as the Constitution contemplates.

Not some L. Neil Smith insurrectionist nonsense.

Congress doesn't yank anyone back into line. Congress sits in D.C. and issues edicts.

Those who desire to "educate" should really read the Constitution. Congress most certainly does yank the States back in line. That is the reason, the original intent, for §5's being.

When the jury box is not available, one explores other boxes until availability is regained. Is the jury box available now? If so, why not make use of it now?

So, you want to have jury trial after jury trial in New Jersey or Massachusetts for people carrying guns? Who will fund this endeavor?

You believe that fellow gun owners will somehow be on the jury?

So, rather than having Congress yank New Jersey and Massachusetts back into line so our fellow gun owners are not subject to New Jersey anti-civil rights laws, you want some Quixotic jury trail out of The Fountainhead?

This is the height of delusion.

Have you considered that it might be because you suggested that it is proper to ask how high when commanded to jump?

States jump when Congress tells them to as to civil rights. This is the original intent of the Framers of §5.

If one advocates justice, perhaps one should be educated as to what it is and what a citizen's role in ensuring that it is served might entail.

The notion that the gun owners of New Jersey have any role in protecting their right to bear arms is analogous to pro-Southern apologist arguments that the Civil Rights Acts are unnecessary as the State of Mississippi operating under Jim Crow will surely protect the rights of African-Americans, who cannot serve on juries.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If the constitution mattered all that much we wouldn't need a law establishing reciprocity.

The Constitution mattered not in Jim Crow Mississippi. The right to bear arms matters not in New Jersey.

The Fourteenth Amendment is needed in both instances to protect the rights of those in Mississippi and New Jersey.

The States can tyrannize just as the Feds can.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I note in this thread not a single person has objected to the current Congressional preemption and protection of the RKBA in 18 USC §925A in the FOPA of 1986, and yet constitutional Congressional action via §5 is seen as some sort of tyrannical act.

Congress can, and must, take action to protect our RKBA. There is nothing unconstitutional or wrong about Congress exercising its duties.

 

[jamil]

And therein lies the rub: in many states, RKBA is enshrined in state constitutions, and in state statute that establishes preemption. There will be no opportunity or authority of state-level regulators to establish such standards.

Driving is pretty much explicitly defined as a state-regulated activity. Likewise with the issuance of marriage licenses. They are distinct from RKBA in this regard.

I do agree with you there. That offers some protection against it. Not enough to assuage my nerves.

 

[jamil]

The Constitution mattered not in Jim Crow Mississippi. The right to bear arms matters not in New Jersey.

The Fourteenth Amendment is needed in both instances to protect the rights of those in Mississippi and New Jersey.

The States can tyrannize just as the Feds can.

They can and have either way. Ultimately, people who are in power say the constitution says what they need it to say. I think a reciprocity law could be written to protect people from the state and the fed. If it does that, I'd be for it. If it ends up being yet another avenue of control, I think we would regret that. Don't get me wrong. I want reciprocity. But let's be careful not to regret what we get after wishing for it.

 

[jamil]

I note in this thread not a single person has objected to the current Congressional preemption and protection of the RKBA in 18 USC §925A in the FOPA of 1986, and yet constitutional Congressional action via §5 is seen as some sort of tyrannical act.

Congress can, and must, take action to protect our RKBA. There is nothing unconstitutional or wrong about Congress exercising its duties.

Well, don't say I'm saying more than I'm saying. I'm saying only exactly what I said.

 

[T.Lex]

I note in this thread not a single person has objected to the current Congressional preemption and protection of the RKBA in 18 USC §925A in the FOPA of 1986, and yet constitutional Congressional action via §5 is seen as some sort of tyrannical act.

Congress can, and must, take action to protect our RKBA. There is nothing unconstitutional or wrong about Congress exercising its duties.

On that note, I'll play a bit of devil's advocate. Yes, let's see INGO's shocked face.

The FOPA framework truly protects firearm owners at the federal level. That is, part of protecting travel between the states. The same right is protected everywhere.

It is an incremental step (and I'm all for incrementalism) to say that the feds should protect different frameworks of "the" right to carry that exist among the states. Under the current patchwork such reciprocity would require each state to recognize each other state's definition and limitations. For instance, how would Ohio's disclosure requirement work in states that don't require disclosure? Or the corollary, would federal reciprocity require a non-Ohio Larry-holder to disclose in Ohio?

If the feds want to establish a single standard for "the" right to carry, to be imposed on all the states - or even a 'floor' for such a right - then it would depend on that definition. In typical INGO fashion, if we approve, then it is great, if we don't, it is evil.

My specific concern is that if they have the statutory power to define "the" right to carry nationally, then they also have the statutory power in the future to limit it. It isn't about this Congress/POTUS/SCOTUS, it is about the forthcoming ones.

So, that's my issue. Conceptually, I'd love federal intervention in a way that I approve.