Could National reciprocity of concealed-carry permits kill the gun bill?

[kumabear17]

Washington Post
Could national reciprocity of concealed-carry permits kill the gun bill? - The Washington Post

Schumer's true colors (if there ever was a doubt) comes out in the article wher questioned: "Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) described the measure this week as “the most pernicious” proposal under consideration and said approving the plan would mean that “Somebody could come from Wyoming to the big cities of New York or New Haven or Bridgeport and carry a concealed weapon, which is so against our way of life and the needs here in New York.”

It's a great idea and I think someone is probably safer in Wyoming then NYC unless like Schumer they have armed guards.

Read More

 

[tunus]

If anything you need a concealed firearm in NYC more than you need one in Wyoming. What NYC needs is he talking about.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[drew]

Chucky must be outraged that NY issues concealed carry permits which are so against the way of life and needs of the people in NY.

I'm also concerned if they add conceal carry reciprocity, they will dictate conceal carry requirements to the states.

 

[hermannr]

A true reciprocity law would only do what we already have with our drivers licenses and automobile licenses. If you are visiting any state, you still have to abide by that state's laws, but you and your vehicle are covered by the state you reside in. The other state, and the Federal government have not, and do not, try to dictate to the other states how a driver or automobile is to be licensed in other states. The feds did try to make a "uniform" truckers license by use of the commerce clause, but in the end, that trucker's license is still a state issued license and subject to the individual state's laws.

I have no problem with this kind of law. The US Constitution says that individual states must recognize the lawful acts of the other states and congress can enforce that recognition through the legislative process. However, the national government has not been given the right to dictate what those individual state laws are.

Secondly, this may actually be an end run around Shumer, Feinstein and co. It may just kill the bill, but from the other side leaving it rather than by gathering in the pro 2A votes.

 

[8ball]

Please God, let national reciprocity pass. Would Obama sign it? I can't imagine it, but the irony would be delicious.

I'd put up with a UBC for national CCW.

 

[pchewn]

Let's just hope that SOMETHING kills this bill.

 

[pchewn]

Please God, let national reciprocity pass. Would Obama sign it? I can't imagine it, but the irony would be delicious.

I'd put up with a UBC for national CCW.

National CCW??? You mean federally-controlled CCW? No thank you!

 

[Kevatc]

A true reciprocity law would only do what we already have with our drivers licenses and automobile licenses. If you are visiting any state, you still have to abide by that state's laws, but you and your vehicle are covered by the state you reside in. The other state, and the Federal government have not, and do not, try to dictate to the other states how a driver or automobile is to be licensed in other states. The feds did try to make a "uniform" truckers license by use of the commerce clause, but in the end, that trucker's license is still a state issued license and subject to the individual state's laws.

I have no problem with this kind of law. The US Constitution says that individual states must recognize the lawful acts of the other states and congress can enforce that recognition through the legislative process. However, the national government has not been given the right to dictate what those individual state laws are.

Secondly, this may actually be an end run around Shumer, Feinstein and co. It may just kill the bill, but from the other side leaving it rather than by gathering in the pro 2A votes.

Please educate me. Would reciprocity be inconsistent with a states right to determine it's own laws? If reciprocity became the law of the land would that force states with much more rigid gun laws to have to become more "liberal" in respect to out-of-state folks?

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

National CCW??? You mean federally-controlled CCW? No thank you!

Again, national reciprocity DOES NOT mean the federal government is controlling concealed carry. ALL it would do is say that if you are licensed in WA, you are good to go in OR and ID and NY and, yes, even CA. It doesn't give the federal government ANY say in how that license is issued...

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

But I still hope the bill fails...

 

[hermannr]

Please educate me. Would reciprocity be inconsistent with a states right to determine it's own laws? If reciprocity became the law of the land would that force states with much more rigid gun laws to have to become more "liberal" in respect to out-of-state folks?

In Article IV section I of the US constitution it states that the individual states are to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts and records of other states. It goes further ands says in part.."Congress may by GENERAL laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and proceeding shall be proved, and the effect thereof"

IMHO: This says, the congress MAY tell the states that they must recognize another states licenses, but not how these licenses may be procured. This will most definitely be decided soon, in court, with "same sex" marriage licenses where some states have allowed same, and some state do not, or even prohibit SSM. I think you will find that my understanding is correct.

It is also the basis of the House reciprocity bill that passed last year. That bill (that has not been voted on in the Senate) basically tells the states. "if a person is licensed in state X, and you have a similar provision in your state law, then you must recognize that license as valid in your state. It would not apply to IL or DC because they do not have a provision for their own citizens to carry (yet: that will change soon. IL has already been told by the court that they MUST make such provision and DC's law is in the courts)

Look at ID. It recognizes all CC permits issued by any other state, but you are still required to follow ID state law when in ID. That is what would happen to all states. If state X issued a CPL, then when a citizen of state X was in state Y, his license would be valid, as if it had been issued by state Y, and as such, that visitor would have to abide by state Y's laws while visiting. It would be just like your automobile license and drivers license is recognized by other states when you visit.

 

[hermannr]

But I still hope the bill fails...

I am against BGC in any manner for anyone at any time, but as they are a fact of life today already, as I read this it really only would add is a mandated check at gun shows.

It COULD be read that if any part of the transaction occurs online you must use an FFL, but it could also be understood that is only true if the transaction takes place online (like using gun broker) or if a person does not have a cpl. Absolutely impossible to enforce the second understanding. Transactions between private parties will never be known to the state, laws like this can only be enforced through licensing dealers. You want to purchase an AR in NYC? Cannot be done legally through a dealer, but can be done on the street simply and easily. There was even a blog writer that wrote about just doing that, (and NYC is about as much of a totalitarian police state as anywhere can be in the US. They even go beyond reasonable).

Do I hope this bill passes? Not sure, I would really like the idea of national reciprocity...is the price too high? Not sure, as I opened with, I do not like the whole idea of Background Checks at all as they infringe on the people who end up being "prohibited"...and I do not understand how they can justify prohibiting anyone that is not forcibly institutionalized as a danger to society. If they live in society, they need to be able to protect themselves from society (and foreign and domestic threats as well as 4 legged predators, just as I do.

Actually, I think Shumer and Feinstein will kill the bill themselves rather than allow national reciprocity.

 

[Netspirit]

If this passes, that would be an enormous win.

Imagine Bloomberg's face when he learns that a resident of WA can walk in NYC with his concealed weapon while the city residents themselves cannot This will be the practical end of their draconian laws since they would become discriminatory towards local residents, and the local residents will want them repealed. Concealed carry laws in the entire country will spiral down to the least common denominator - to little/no regulation whatsoever.

 

[Kevatc]

In Article IV section I of the US constitution it states that the individual states are to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts and records of other states. It goes further ands says in part.."Congress may by GENERAL laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and proceeding shall be proved, and the effect thereof"

IMHO: This says, the congress MAY tell the states that they must recognize another states licenses, but not how these licenses may be procured. This will most definitely be decided soon, in court, with "same sex" marriage licenses where some states have allowed same, and some state do not, or even prohibit SSM. I think you will find that my understanding is correct.

It is also the basis of the House reciprocity bill that passed last year. That bill (that has not been voted on in the Senate) basically tells the states. "if a person is licensed in state X, and you have a similar provision in your state law, then you must recognize that license as valid in your state. It would not apply to IL or DC because they do not have a provision for their own citizens to carry (yet: that will change soon. IL has already been told by the court that they MUST make such provision and DC's law is in the courts)

Look at ID. It recognizes all CC permits issued by any other state, but you are still required to follow ID state law when in ID. That is what would happen to all states. If state X issued a CPL, then when a citizen of state X was in state Y, his license would be valid, as if it had been issued by state Y, and as such, that visitor would have to abide by state Y's laws while visiting. It would be just like your automobile license and drivers license is recognized by other states when you visit.

Thanks for this explanation. It helped clear up some of my confusion. I do have two more questions ... would it all come down to which state/s made it easiest to get a CHL? Would the choice of "shall issue" just become the standard? I would imagine that states that would have an incredibly high standard for issuing CHL's would be taken to court for denying to their own citizens what out-of-staters can do in the same state.

 

[oknow]

But I still hope the bill fails...

that almost sounds like an anti talking

 

[boarder4life81]

I would actually find it ironic if the bill fails because the anti's don't want the national reciprocity. This whole fight they (anti's) talk about compromise, which I thought meant both sides give and take, but when gun rights groups talk about taking a right we should already have the anti's balk. The anti-gun group has no intention of compromise, only divide and conquer. Now is the time to lock shields and hold off this threat.

 

[hermannr]

Thanks for this explanation. It helped clear up some of my confusion. I do have two more questions ... would it all come down to which state/s made it easiest to get a CHL? Would the choice of "shall issue" just become the standard? I would imagine that states that would have an incredibly high standard for issuing CHL's would be taken to court for denying to their own citizens what out-of-staters can do in the same state.

IMHO: universal "Shall Issue" will happen with a US Supreme Court ruling on Kachalski v Cacase (NY Westchester Co NY..appeal at the Supreme court now..not accepted yet, but should be soon (days), or not. If not Kachalski, then Wollard V Sheridan (MD case that is request for en blac at the 4th right now. I am hoping for Kachalski being accepted.

I expect that any national reciprocity will result in all states only recognizing permits from residents of the state that issued the permit. There would be no need for any non-resident permits. That would stop a serious revenue stream for states like FL and UT, but whatever your state required for you to be licensed in your state, would be good everywhere in the US, would not matter is you came from PA or WA (very easy to obtain a CPL) or NJ, NY, MD, very difficult because of discretionary issue, or NM and TX (very expensive because of the training requirements)

The states that would soil their pantyhose with this would be places like CA, CT, DC, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and maybe IL. Well see about IL if/when they finally get a CC law on the books (Court ordered, the state of IL has about 3 more months to get it's act together before they become another VT by court order (no license needed, no restrictions). They were given 6 months by the 7th US Court of appeals to enact a law before their present no carry law is no longer a valid law).

 

[kumabear17]

IMHO: universal "Shall Issue" will happen with a US Supreme Court ruling on Kachalski v Cacase (NY Westchester Co NY..appeal at the Supreme court now..not accepted yet, but should be soon (days), or not. If not Kachalski, then Wollard V Sheridan (MD case that is request for en blac at the 4th right now. I am hoping for Kachalski being accepted.).

I think we all hope you are correct in your analysis. We all thought the Supreme Court was going to defend us on Obamacare before Roberts sold out to the other side. I don't see with the make-up of this Court we could ever manage better then a 5-4 decision and right now that could be either way.

Why do you see this so differently. Just being a positive thinker or....?

 

[fallingblock]

that almost sounds like an anti talking

What happens if the Supreme Court takes this concealed permit case and finds that there is no grounds for folks to carry concealed and all states should be "may issue"... What then?

Just look at Heller... Pretty straight forward and obvious to those who understand the words "shall not be infringed", but a 5 to 4 vote by those who are suppose to know and understand those words (along with a few others) had 4 supreme's unable to clearly understand English.

I'm not sure the Supreme Court should be involved in this yet. They are unpredictable (look at Obamacare and the "tax" they call a penalty).

And to be honest, the whole "permit" thing is unconstitutional in the first place and it is a blatant, outright infringment on our rights.

There's another point... What happens if the Supreme's decided that the permit is unconsitutional? Don't you think the Anti's would be all over trying to ban any sort of public carry then?.....

Too many variable to left up 9 folks who are unpredictable to say the least.

 

[8ball]

National CCW??? You mean federally-controlled CCW? No thank you!

No, state issued like drivers licenses, but nationally recognized. California and New York can choose how to issue their own licenses, but they have to recognize Washington and Oregon licenses regardless.