Justifying Concealed Carry Reciprocity

[johngalt]

The House has acted to expand our gun rights not to contract them. If the Senate can manage to get its or the House Bill through the Senate that expansion of our rights will be come law. I don’t see the logic of opposing an expansion of our gun rights because of fear that the people that did it are suddenly going to decrease this rights in the future. I would point out that the anti 2A folks have not made much progress over the last decade I spit of all the negative publicity caused by mass shootings. In fact the number of citizens that approve of gun ownership has been increasing ever year. Worry about the potential bad effect of a goof effect is a bit odd.

The house did not act to expand our gun rights. They acted to expand their control into an area that is none of their business.

While this group of people may not decrease our rights, the next group will. And the infrastructure will be in place to make it easier for them to do so.

It is easy for anyone without a criminal record to carry in Indiana. Indiana automatically recognizes all other states. The bill does nothing of benefit that the states can't do on their own.

State's rights cut both ways. You can't pick and choose, jumping and down screaming "State's Rights!" when the feds want to put their foot down on something, then demand federal interference when a State doesn't do what you want.

You either have States Rights, or you don't. The majority of the people of NJ have decided, through their representatives, that they don't want people carrying in their state. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

 

[steelslaver]

Here is the rub. It all sounds so simple and clear in the bill and nothing there that can go wrong.

How simple and clear is the second amendment? It a simple clear amendment in the Bill of Rights which trumps state and federal law. Go bear arms in New Jersey, California or Hawaii and then we will talk about how there is no way this law could go wrong for citizens. While the wording may be simple, I bet you a dollar to a hole in a doughnut that the implementation will not be.

Yup, a lot of state laws, Attorney General "interpretations", federal court decisions later and we will really see. What the law says is only the very tips off the iceberg. I too foresee federally mandated rules on concealed carry coming out of this.

Seat belt laws, drinking ages, school funding and curriculum have all been force on states. If you think they can or won't do it with concealed carry I have a very nice bridge I'll sell you.

 

[oneounceload]

If I carry a type of gun not listed on Californias roster am I legal???

Most likely, you would not be legal

 

[richardw]

The question was: “If I carry a type of gun not listed on Californias roster am I legal???”

Most likely, you would not be legal

The law states that a person “may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device).” So it appears that any gun except a machine gun or destructive device is OK. A destructive device is a type of firearm or explosive device regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, revised by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Gun Control Act of 1968.

Examples of destructive devices include grenades, and firearms with a bore over one half of an inch (.50 inches or 12.7mm), excluding some rifles and most shotguns, both semi automatic and manually operated. While current federal laws allow destructive devices, some states have banned them from transfer to civilians. In states where banned, only law enforcement officers and military personnel are allowed to possess them.

 

[LostintheOzone]

State's rights cut both ways. You can't pick and choose, jumping and down screaming "State's Rights!" when the feds want to put their foot down on something, then demand federal interference when a State doesn't do what you want.

You either have States Rights, or you don't. The majority of the people of NJ have decided, through their representatives, that they don't want people carrying in their state. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

That's it in a nut shell.

Although some disagree with the lower federal courts decision to let states decide for themselves how they regulate AR's, and scream about a violation of 2A, it's a matter of states rights. You either let the feds regulate it or you let the states regulate. If a SC decision were handed down tomorrow regarding your right to own an AR you would probably loose your right, I have no doubt about that. Any one remember the AWB? Congress did that. "The people" have a right to decide what's best for them where they live. NJ has a very long history of denying people the right to carry concealed just as many western states have a very long history of OC and shall issue.

Personally, I have seen a very bad track record regarding federal regulation on just about any issue you wish to examine.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Since when did Jersey become part of the Union? I thought like CA they were their own separate country.

No, actually I think CA is a state in Mexico, or soon will be Think of the resort possibilities and cheap vacations. Of course you will need a passport card to come and go but I already have one of those.

 

[lrrifleman]

No, actually I think CA is a state in Mexico, or soon will be Think of the resort possibilities and cheap vacations. Of course you will need a passport card to come and go but I already have one of those.

Just don't drink the water!

 

[American1776]

Thinking about this, what would be bad with the following: keep all state permits as they are. In addition, offer a permit that is good nationally. This one would be separate from our state permit, and would have the requisite training that NJ and CA are now complaining about.

 

[scha]

Just remember, cities and states don't (and won't) follow federal laws today. Think sanctuary cities!

 

[lrrifleman]

Thinking about this, what would be bad with the following: keep all state permits as they are. In addition, offer a permit that is good nationally. This one would be separate from our state permit, and would have the requisite training that NJ and CA are now complaining about.

NJ isn't talking about training. The Democrats that are controlling the state government don't want civilians to have guns, let alone carry them. Excluding retired LEOs (most likely retired state troopers), the only known civilian CCW holder in Atlantic county is the judge that presided over the Shaneen Allen case (per information posted by NJ2A). Gun "crimes" carry stiffer penalties than any other crime in NJ. In NJ, whether a gun crime or an accessory crime, all are felonies with mandated prison time before probation can be considered. PTI is typically never an option in a gun crime case. As written in judicial rulings, gun ownership in NJ is at your own peril, and you are presumed guilty until you are proven innocent ... the burden of proof lies upon the accused ... contrary to other crimes and free states.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Thinking about this, what would be bad with the following: keep all state permits as they are. In addition, offer a permit that is good nationally. This one would be separate from our state permit, and would have the requisite training that NJ and CA are now complaining about.

Might work. At least you would be able to opt out.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Just remember, cities and states don't (and won't) follow federal laws today. Think sanctuary cities!

Yeah, that's going thru the courts right now. I'm in WA and the AG here files a law suit almost every week . Another state AG said his daily routine was to get up, have breakfast, go to the office and file a law suit against the Obama administration.

 

[jrclen]

All I know is when I drive to Arizona or Nevada, I want to carry in Illinois, Texas, and New Mexico. And at 70 I doubt I will live long enough to see the utopian dream of constitutional carry in all 50 states. So I want this in the mean time. And the last time the politicians tried to shove gun control down our throats the gun haters lost control of the house, the senate, and the white house. So who are we afraid of that are going to pass all these doom and gloom laws?

 

[GaryS]

This my concern as well. We know what the proposed law says today. We don't know what it might be amended or interpreted by a court to mean in five years.

Once you can require training and licensing to exercise a Right enumerated in the Constitution, you run the risk of that Right being regulated out of existence.

"In order to possess a firearm, you must pass the written test with a score of 100%. Further, you must take a shooting exam under combat conditions and score a 100%."

It's for the safety of the children. Do you hate children?

I believe it was President Reagan who said that rights and freedom of the citizens are no more than two election cycles away from being abolished.

I am at odds with some things the NRA supports. Every time Wayne LaPierre says the NRA supports NICS it makes me vomit. After Sandy Hook, I was totally against the NRA's idea of setting up Federally funded armed security guards at all schools across the nation. Sorry, but just because the NRA says so don't work for me.

To the point... The disparities among licensing and qualifications are so dramatically different across the nation that it will ultimately result in an effort to create federal licensing and training standards. That's the problem. Doesn't matter what the bill says today.

 

[oneounceload]

All I know is when I drive to Arizona or Nevada, I want to carry in Illinois, Texas, and New Mexico. And at 70 I doubt I will live long enough to see the utopian dream of constitutional carry in all 50 states. So I want this in the mean time. And the last time the politicians tried to shove gun control down our throats the gun haters lost control of the house, the senate, and the white house. So who are we afraid of that are going to pass all these doom and gloom laws?

Get a Utah permit and you should be good to go.
As to who will pass those laws, the liberals will once they come back into power. An Executive Order can do that simply and quickly.

 

[Bill Lear]

For those who find the selves needing to argue in support of concealed carry reciprosity there is an excellent article in the Federalist. It systematically lays out the reasoning that denying concealed carry reciprocity is relegating 2A to the status of less than other co stitutional guaranteed rights. If you are interested, you can read it here:

Without Concealed-Carry Reciprocity, Self-Defense Is Second-Class Right

You touch upon a valid point...all the other nine amendments are liberally interpreted while the second is quite conservatively interpreted...all in the interest of protecting us from ourselves dontchaknow!

I find it interesting that after the Federal government passed the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, the former Confederate States immediately began seeking ways to infringe on the rights of freed slaves, thus prompting the 14th amendment, essentially forcing the States to acknowledge the superior position of the federal constitution.

In reality, ALL restrictive State's anti-gun laws should be struck down via the 14th amendment, but of course, good luck finding a circuit court willing to make that play.

 

[adwjc]

Again, so you have a PA permit and go to NJ where NJ currently does not honor anyone else. They also have strict rules for even transporting your gun to the range (and nowhere else_ So what good does it do to give some power to the Feds which will eventually morph into something huge, cumbersome, inefficient, and potentially detrimental to gun owners? What about states that do not issue anything but allow folks to carry openly or concealed? How do they do that in NJ?

Mr. load, as I read your comment I can't help but wonder are you trying to be obtuse or are you really asking a question?

The NJ regulations you cite are the laws that cover anyone in legal possession of a firearm, THAT DOES NOT HAVE A NJ PERMIT to CARRY. Similar laws in neighboring NY restrict those who don't have an UN RESTRICTED Pistol license in the same way.

The proposed federal law would only allow those properly licensed out of state people to carry, where the majority of residents in those two and some other unfree states remain disarmed.

Your fear of federal over reach has been the unfulfilled stuff of legend for many years.

 

[American1776]

NJ isn't talking about training. The Democrats that are controlling the state government don't want civilians to have guns, let alone carry them. Excluding retired LEOs (most likely retired state troopers), the only known civilian CCW holder in Atlantic county is the judge that presided over the Shaneen Allen case (per information posted by NJ2A). Gun "crimes" carry stiffer penalties than any other crime in NJ. In NJ, whether a gun crime or an accessory crime, all are felonies with mandated prison time before probation can be considered. PTI is typically never an option in a gun crime case. As written in judicial rulings, gun ownership in NJ is at your own peril, and you are presumed guilty until you are proven innocent ... the burden of proof lies upon the accused ... contrary to other crimes and free states.

In reading and listening to arguments from the anti-states, their big complaint is about ‘different standards’ that allow untrained permit holders to carry guns in the anti states. Listening to the house debates, that’s the majority of the arguments. So, we can fulfill the training requirements of those states with a national permit that is separate from the state permits.

 

[GaryS]

Which is the absolute last thing we want. A national gun permit is akin to a "national voting permit" or a "national First Amendment permit".

In reading and listening to arguments from the anti-states, their big complaint is about ‘different standards’ that allow untrained permit holders to carry guns in the anti states. Listening to the house debates, that’s the majority of the arguments. So, we can fulfill the training requirements of those states with a national permit that is separate from the state permits.

 

[American1776]

Which is the absolute last thing we want. A national gun permit is akin to a "national voting permit" or a "national First Amendment permit".

I don't disagree with you on that.

But right now, we have state governments that violate the 2nd Amendment in the most absolute way. Just like prior to 1964, we had states violating the constitution with segregation in the south.

Passing the civil rights acts of 1964/5 were acts of federal authority that I didn't like one bit. But it was necessary given how the governments of the south had laws that were violating the constitution.

Ideally we shouldn't have the civil rights acts. But we needed them to undo segregation.

Ideally, we shouldn't need a national permit (separate from out state permits) to carry a firearm across the country. But we need it now in order to stop states from violating the Constitution.

We can say all we want, 'Shall not be infringed', and 'The 2nd Amendment is my carry permit', but that's not reality. It should be like that, but it isn't. The next question is, how do we move from where we are at now, to where things should be.