Nor are DL's enumerated, yet they're legal in all 50 states. Ditto for marriage licenses.
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act
- Thread starter Warren Sear
- Start date
Nor are DL's enumerated, yet they're legal in all 50 states. Ditto for marriage licenses.
Unconstitutional infringement on the state?????? What about the state’s unconstitutional infringement on its residents?
Shibadog
Member
I think this is the point. NO other constitutional right is interpreted differently as you go from state to state. I’d think that a “disparity of treatment” lawsuit would have been raised long since. I do what I do every day and have for decades now in multiple states, BUT if I cross the river to the west into Illinois I’m suddenly a criminal. If that’s not disparate treatment what is?
14daMoney
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 323
if I want to leave this god forsaken NY state legally, I have either go NE through New England and then take a boat to S. Carolina or jump onboard something on Lake Ontario and come back into the states via Ohio. But, I'll just take my chances driving the speed limit the 50 miles of the NW corner of that other crap state Pa. 
I drive 70 mph on 2 lane roads all the time in Montana, I crossed the boarder into Idaho and was given a $100+ ticket for going 65 on a 2 lane road. Can I sue for disparity of treatment? No
I don’t think it’s the same thing. You don’t have a constitutional right to drive 70 mph.
I do have the right to travel with my property among the many states.. Nowhere is there a stated limit on how slow I have to go when I to do so. You also don't have an unlimited right to carry what ever and where ever you want. Try getting into the White House or congress with a gun. Go see how far your constitutional right gets you packing a full auto machine gun in any state without a stamp for it. Take freedom of speech, I can't scream fire in a theater, Freedom of religion won't let me have 4 wives or practice human or even animal sacrifices. But,
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Article IV
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
14daMoney
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 323
Uhmmm, ".....Nowhere is there a stated limit on how slow I have to go when I to do so."; incorrect, many areas have posted minimum speed limits.
A posted minimum does not limit how slow I must go. It limits how fast I have to go. A posted speed limit dictates how slow I must go. But I was speaking about my constitution right to travel in the many states being similar to my constitution right to bear arms. Both can be restricted in some manner by the various states. AS IN now where is my Constitution is my right to travel among the states restricted by any speed limit. Thinking that your Constitional right bear arms can't be restricted by the states is the same thing
Last edited:
Crap state though it may be, PA doesn't require permit for mere possession nor will it harass people traveling through the state on their way somewhere. NY, NJ, and MD have their reputations for a reason. MA doesn't bother people who are traveling through the state as long as firearms are locked up per federal law.
There are far worse states for gun owners than PA.
There are far worse states for gun owners than PA.
if I want to leave this god forsaken NY state legally, I have either go NE through New England and then take a boat to S. Carolina or jump onboard something on Lake Ontario and come back into the states via Ohio. But, I'll just take my chances driving the speed limit the 50 miles of the NW corner of that other crap state Pa.
14daMoney
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 323
having to store and lock up my weapon does nothing for my safety or that of my family if I stop for gas or a break . . . .
This has been one of those 2A wet dreams for 30 years now. Its not going to happen because it creates an internal conflict from a conservative government point of view (rather than from any other kind of "conservative" point of view - and people make the mistake of conflating or those different aspects of "conservative").
On the one hand, we can all point to things like driver's licenses, marriage licenses, etc and claim concealed carry permits should be the same way.
On the other hand we have state's rights. There is for example (non commercial) drivers license reciprocity only because of mutual agreements among states, usually informal. States rights is the conservative government argument that historically has prevailed on issues like this that are not viewed as specifically violating a constitutional right.
Issuance of marriage licenses is also a right granted to the state and as you well know it can be controversial in some situations with some states not having the same standards as others and occasionally resulting in federal court cases to determine whether it crosses the lines of violating a constitutional right.
The reality is that a much stronger case can be made for driver's license reciprocity due to interstate commerce interests, and marriage license reciprocity due to the chaos that would result otherwise, than can be made for concealed carry reciprocity.
----
At best we might get clarification in the form of a federal all defining what you can carry in another reciprocal state. However, that's still a huge stretch and falls in the "you wont like what you get" category. For example if carrying a hollow points in a 17 round magazine is legal under your permit in your home state, a federal law could state it would also be legal in a state that bans hollow points and magazines with more than 10 round capacity in a state with a reciprocity agreement. Similarly, similar logic could be applied in where its legal to carry in a state rather than having a hodge podge of different state rules.
The argument there is that states can and should be able to determine what their residents can legally carry and where they carry it as a state right, but they should not be able to dictate what the residents of other states can carry and where. Good luck with that.
The problem of course is if a federal law like that came to pass, it would be one more factor states would then add to the burden of establishing reciprocity agreements in the first place, and we'd see a lot fewer reciprocity agreements.
----
Constitutional Carry also isn't a solution. As implemented in a number of states already, states vary on whether it applies to everyone or just their state's residents.
There's also the practical matter that persons with concealed carry permits have been found to be 6-7 times less likely to commit any felony or misdemeanor than law enforcement officers. Most states require at least some level of training in firearms safety and or the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force. Constitutional Carry laws by definition let people carry with no guarantee they understand safe gun handling or what they can and cannot due when it comes to the use of deadly force. In the long term there will inevitably be more "bad" shoots, that have the potential to swing the pendulum way back in the other direction.
And of course, carrying under constitutional carry doesn't give you any state reciprocity, unless that state recognizes constitutional carry for non residents. Consequently some states with Constitutional carry still offer concealed carry permits. SD for example offers three levels of concealed carry permits with differences in if and how many states honor the permit.
On the one hand, we can all point to things like driver's licenses, marriage licenses, etc and claim concealed carry permits should be the same way.
On the other hand we have state's rights. There is for example (non commercial) drivers license reciprocity only because of mutual agreements among states, usually informal. States rights is the conservative government argument that historically has prevailed on issues like this that are not viewed as specifically violating a constitutional right.
Issuance of marriage licenses is also a right granted to the state and as you well know it can be controversial in some situations with some states not having the same standards as others and occasionally resulting in federal court cases to determine whether it crosses the lines of violating a constitutional right.
The reality is that a much stronger case can be made for driver's license reciprocity due to interstate commerce interests, and marriage license reciprocity due to the chaos that would result otherwise, than can be made for concealed carry reciprocity.
----
At best we might get clarification in the form of a federal all defining what you can carry in another reciprocal state. However, that's still a huge stretch and falls in the "you wont like what you get" category. For example if carrying a hollow points in a 17 round magazine is legal under your permit in your home state, a federal law could state it would also be legal in a state that bans hollow points and magazines with more than 10 round capacity in a state with a reciprocity agreement. Similarly, similar logic could be applied in where its legal to carry in a state rather than having a hodge podge of different state rules.
The argument there is that states can and should be able to determine what their residents can legally carry and where they carry it as a state right, but they should not be able to dictate what the residents of other states can carry and where. Good luck with that.
The problem of course is if a federal law like that came to pass, it would be one more factor states would then add to the burden of establishing reciprocity agreements in the first place, and we'd see a lot fewer reciprocity agreements.
----
Constitutional Carry also isn't a solution. As implemented in a number of states already, states vary on whether it applies to everyone or just their state's residents.
There's also the practical matter that persons with concealed carry permits have been found to be 6-7 times less likely to commit any felony or misdemeanor than law enforcement officers. Most states require at least some level of training in firearms safety and or the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force. Constitutional Carry laws by definition let people carry with no guarantee they understand safe gun handling or what they can and cannot due when it comes to the use of deadly force. In the long term there will inevitably be more "bad" shoots, that have the potential to swing the pendulum way back in the other direction.
And of course, carrying under constitutional carry doesn't give you any state reciprocity, unless that state recognizes constitutional carry for non residents. Consequently some states with Constitutional carry still offer concealed carry permits. SD for example offers three levels of concealed carry permits with differences in if and how many states honor the permit.
You make some valid points. Driver's license recognition was done by a compact among states, as I think, were road markings, traffic light colors, and so on. Conservatives are supposed to be in favor of states rights, but some people think that doesn't apply to things they are in favor of or oppose.
I'm not sure that I want the federal government getting involved in this for the reasons you point out. Everyone is going to want their hobby horse included in the bill, and that includes Democrats. Plus, there are plenty of court cases in various stages of litigation over things like magazine limits, rosters, types of weapons allowed, and so on.
I'm not sure that I want the federal government getting involved in this for the reasons you point out. Everyone is going to want their hobby horse included in the bill, and that includes Democrats. Plus, there are plenty of court cases in various stages of litigation over things like magazine limits, rosters, types of weapons allowed, and so on.
My travel may be restricted and have different rules in different states. But I’m still allowed to travel……different states want me to follow their gun laws ? Ok. But let me have a gun.
These are not valid points. How can you possibly say interstate commerce makes a better argument than the Constitution of the United States? 2A rights will continue to get trampled on until the federal govt puts a stop to it.
You can as long as you keep it unloaded and locked up in a box.
I get your sentiment and believe I should be able to carry in every state. But, the reality is that each state WILL restrict that right with or without reciprocation. IF YOU BELIEVE IN STATES RIGHTS, YOU SHOULD BE BELIEVE IN A STATES RIGHT TO REGULATE WHAT HAPPENS IN IT. If you believe reciprocity would give you the right to carry what ever gun, with what ever capacity and ammo you want or is legal in your state where ever you want, you do not believe in states rights. The idea that the 2nd does not allow for any infringements what so ever is long gone. Do you believe anyone who so wishes should be able to board any plane they want with a loaded M79 grenade launcher? No, Well that would be an infringement now wouldn't it? THERE IS A LINE.
I get your sentiment and believe I should be able to carry in every state. But, the reality is that each state WILL restrict that right with or without reciprocation. IF YOU BELIEVE IN STATES RIGHTS, YOU SHOULD BE BELIEVE IN A STATES RIGHT TO REGULATE WHAT HAPPENS IN IT. If you believe reciprocity would give you the right to carry what ever gun, with what ever capacity and ammo you want or is legal in your state where ever you want, you do not believe in states rights. The idea that the 2nd does not allow for any infringements what so ever is long gone. Do you believe anyone who so wishes should be able to board any plane they want with a loaded M79 grenade launcher? No, Well that would be an infringement now wouldn't it? THERE IS A LINE.
In Bruen, SCOTUS stated that carry in "sensitive places" could be restricted. The battle now is over what those sensitive places consist of. On another forum an idiot was crowing about how Texas isn't really gun friendly because there are places that you can't carry. What was really funny was that he was comparing it to Massachusetts.
Different states have different thoughts on what constitutes a sensitive place, which is as it should be.
Different states have different thoughts on what constitutes a sensitive place, which is as it should be.
The constitution does not allow for states to restrict specific declared rights. The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights the government grants to the citizens…it is a list of rights which the government is prohibited from infringing upon.
It is completely different from the millions of pages of other statute crap they continue to push.
It is completely different from the millions of pages of other statute crap they continue to push.
Locked and unloaded does mot constitute ‘bearing’ an arm. Therefore their BS is BS.
The Supreme Court has also allowed various weapon restrictions in different states. In Montana, no permit is needed to carry concealed. But getting an actual permit is really easy. The amount of training needed is up to the county sheriff. But, even the most strict only require a NRA hand gun safety course. The sheriff in this county doesn't require any that I know of. I applied for my initial permit on Thursday and got it on Monday. You can get a permit here at 18. I do not believe all of the other 49 states will ever accept a regular Montana permit even with Federal reciprocation. ONCE AGAIN, they will figure out some sort of restrictions. Ya, 5-10 years later the Court might over rule those restrictions., and then they will simply put different one in place. That's what they have always done. IE you gun can only hold so many rounds, with so much power and such and such a bullet and it must be carried in a holster which is locked and never within 10 miles of a school.
