Justifying Concealed Carry Reciprocity

[jrclen]

The next question is, how do we move from where we are at now, to where things should be.

Like we have been, one step at a time. In my opinion, the more gains we make, the better. Who would have guessed twenty years ago we would even be having this conversation? Concealed carry anywhere was just a dream. Many of us remember those who fought against concealed carry permits because it was "shall not be infringed" or nothing.

 

[oneounceload]

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

Not quite unfulfilled. The Feds have fulfilled that fear many times in many ways in many areas.

 

[BC38]

Like we have been, one step at a time. In my opinion, the more gains we make, the better. Who would have guessed twenty years ago we would even be having this conversation? Concealed carry anywhere was just a dream. Many of us remember those who fought against concealed carry permits because it was "shall not be infringed" or nothing.

EXCELLENT point!

I am also one that fears allowing the Feds to get their hands on this issue (any more than they already have). They seem to screw up everything they touch...

HOWEVER, this can also be viewed as using the same tactics as our opponents - tactics they have used very successfully for many years.

The tactic I'm referring to is INCREMENTALISM. Get what you want in the end by making little gains where you can and when you can to keep moving forward one step at a time.

That is one of the ways they have defeated us for so long. As principled people we have taken an "all or nothing" stance - which has meant we ended up with nothing. Whereas they have always pursued the "take what you can get now and keep coming back for more" stance - and inch by inch they took more and more.

Maybe it is time we adopt that approach as well. It seemed to work well for them for most of the last 50 years or so....

 

[steelslaver]

Don't get me wrong, I do hope the bill passes. I do believe I should be able to carry in any state, city or county in the union.

But, just I have hard time believing it will be the final word. If it does pass I would still hesitate to carry in some of the more anti states. Even carrying in some of the states that already recognize my permit makes me a bit nervous. Every LEO doesn't know everything and some don't like "civilians" being armed. I am lucky in that my wife is an attorney and that maybe a deterrent to some who would and could figure out something. I also believve being older makes me seem less of a threat. Here having a gun is "normal" unless I do something stupid the chances of any escalation are very slim. I don't even want to be cuffed be put at gun point or the like while they figure it out. Even if it does become legal doesn't mean it can't be a serious hassle. If this bill passes I still would not want to be stopped carrying a place like New York city.

Time will tell.

 

[johngalt]

I thought I would make a comment on using the "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” clause in the Constitution as evidence that all state licenses, including CCW licenses, should be recognized in all states. Driver's licenses are often thrown out as an example.

However, there was no federal action forcing reciprocity of state driver's licenses. The states did that on their own.

Furthermore, states don't recognize reciprocity of professional licenses such as engineering, law, or medical practices. Is that a violation? No, it isn't.

 

[American1776]

I thought I would make a comment on using the "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” clause in the Constitution as evidence that all state licenses, including CCW licenses, should be recognized in all states. Driver's licenses are often thrown out as an example.

However, there was no federal action forcing reciprocity of state driver's licenses. The states did that on their own.

Furthermore, states don't recognize reciprocity of professional licenses such as engineering, law, or medical practices. Is that a violation? No, it isn't.

Practicing medicine or law is not a Constitutionally enumerated Natural Right. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, even specified by John Locke himself in 'The Second Treatise on Government', chapter 19. Therefore, the states can refuse licensing of specific professions, but they cannot do the same with the natural right to keep and bear arms.

States do not have rights; people have rights. States have the *power* to enact whatever laws they want, so long as they do not violate the *rights* of the people. This is why states cannot pass a law allowing slavery or segregation---such laws violate the natural rights of the citizens, just like laws that would lock people up simply for possessing a firearm.

 

[johngalt]

Practicing medicine or law is not a Constitutionally enumerated Natural Right. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, even specified by John Locke himself in 'The Second Treatise on Government', chapter 19. Therefore, the states can refuse licensing of specific professions, but they cannot do the same with the natural right to keep and bear arms.

States do not have rights; people have rights. States have the *power* to enact whatever laws they want, so long as they do not violate the *rights* of the people. This is why states cannot pass a law allowing slavery or segregation---such laws violate the natural rights of the citizens, just like laws that would lock people up simply for possessing a firearm.

True - states have powers not rights. The phrase 'State's Right's' usually refers to state's sovereignty vs. Federal power. My point was it is inconsistent to claim it in opposition to federal dictates, but then demand those same federal dictates to make a state to do something you support.

You are falling into the trap of claiming the Constitution grants rights, and therefor only those explicitly listed exist. Yes, the right to bear arms is a natural right. So is the right to engage in commerce (or stated a different way - the right to voluntarily engage in contracts). I doubt the founders ever envisioned that licensing would be required to engage in practically every occupation now.

I'm just saying that using driver's licenses as supporting evidence that it is Constitutional for the feds to require states to honor other states CCW licenses is faulty.

From my reading, my interpretation of the phrase 'full faith and credit' simply means a citizen of one state is a citizen of all the states. I don't believe it means that one state has the authority to extend its authority into the jurisdiction of another state. There is no reciprocity of professional licenses, I don't think there is any Constitutional reason that CCW should be any different.

 

[American1776]

True - states have powers not rights. The phrase 'State's Right's' usually refers to state's sovereignty vs. Federal power. My point was it is inconsistent to claim it in opposition to federal dictates, but then demand those same federal dictates to make a state to do something you support.

You are falling into the trap of claiming the Constitution grants rights, and therefor only those explicitly listed exist. Yes, the right to bear arms is a natural right. So is the right to engage in commerce (or stated a different way - the right to voluntarily engage in contracts). I doubt the founders ever envisioned that licensing would be required to engage in practically every occupation now.

I'm just saying that using driver's licenses as supporting evidence that it is Constitutional for the feds to require states to honor other states CCW licenses is faulty.

From my reading, my interpretation of the phrase 'full faith and credit' simply means a citizen of one state is a citizen of all the states. I don't believe it means that one state has the authority to extend its authority into the jurisdiction of another state. There is no reciprocity of professional licenses, I don't think there is any Constitutional reason that CCW should be any different.

I think we agree on a lot.

Natural Rights precede the Constitution; the Constitution merely specifies certain Natural Rights that government cannot violate. According to the Natural Rights theory (in the traditions of Aquinas, Locke, etc), these rights either come from our Creator, or we possess due to the sort of beings we are (free and rational beings).

I agree that in principle, state licensing runs dangerously close to being afoul of a general natural right to liberty. I'm more comfortable with private organization licensing, just as clubs can determine who can join.

My general view on the matter is: Government has become so large and invasive into liberty, that at this point, we actually need laws to be passed in order to restore some liberty. I think my example of the civil rights acts in the 60's is a good example of federal laws that were necessary in order to correct government that ran amok. I don't like more laws; but we are so deep in this mess that we might need some laws to undo some of that mess. NJ is so flagrant and arrogant in their violations of the RKABA, and they have gotten away with their crimes against citizens for far too long. Sometimes the force of federal law is needed to undo these injustices.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

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.

C'mon.... let's get serious.

Both CA and NJ refuse to recognize any state carry permit across America regardless of their permitting requirements.

I can't even begin to imagine what level of draconian law and onerous requirements would satisfy NJ to welcome us hillbillies from Tennessee carrying Glocks with 17rd mags loaded with "cop killer bullets" into the Garden State. A guy would have to have a pretty active imagination to go that far. Go ahead, give it a shot.

------------

ps. anyone notice that Constitutional Carry is quickly growing? Anyone wonder why the Feds and the NRA seem so interested in intervening at this point?

Great animated map.

Concealed Carry Animated Map

 

[snubbyfan]

I'm just hoping that one day, I'll be able to carry my snubby on into Maryland.

 

[ladder13]

C'mon.... let's get serious.

Both CA and NJ refuse to recognize any state carry permit across America regardless of their permitting requirements.

I can't even begin to imagine what level of draconian law and onerous requirements would satisfy NJ to welcome us hillbillies from Tennessee carrying Glocks with 17rd mags loaded with "cop killer bullets" into the Garden State. A guy would have to have a pretty active imagination to go that far. Go ahead, give it a shot.

------------

ps. anyone notice that Constitutional Carry is quickly growing? Anyone wonder why the Feds and the NRA seem so interested in intervening at this point?

Great animated map.

Concealed Carry Animated Map

Phil, you left out NYS. Under no circumstances will they ever allow reciprocity even if the courts told them they had to.
They are already threatening a lawsuit over the new tax reform Bill. What do you think they’ll do when it comes to guns?

 

[GaryS]

One of the 13, I think it's Wyoming, restricts Constitutional Carry to state residents. Most of the states still issue licenses if a person wants one, which comes in handy for reciprocity. VT issues no form of permit and some states require a home state permit to issue non resident permits.

ladder13's comments are why I'd like to see this come down from SCOTUS as opposed to legislation. Justice Thomas showed the way in his separate, but concurring opinion in McDonald. Given his way, he'd have resurrected the "Privileges or Immunities" section of the 14th Amendment. The other Justices were much more limited in their application of the law and so McDonald was a step forward, but not the game changer it could have been.

C'mon.... let's get serious.

Both CA and NJ refuse to recognize any state carry permit across America regardless of their permitting requirements.

I can't even begin to imagine what level of draconian law and onerous requirements would satisfy NJ to welcome us hillbillies from Tennessee carrying Glocks with 17rd mags loaded with "cop killer bullets" into the Garden State. A guy would have to have a pretty active imagination to go that far. Go ahead, give it a shot.

------------

ps. anyone notice that Constitutional Carry is quickly growing? Anyone wonder why the Feds and the NRA seem so interested in intervening at this point?

Great animated map.

Concealed Carry Animated Map

 

[johngalt]

... NJ is so flagrant and arrogant in their violations of the RKABA, and they have gotten away with their crimes against citizens for far too long. Sometimes the force of federal law is needed to undo these injustices.

True, NJ very flagrantly violates the RKBA. Ideally, there should be Constitutional carry in all states. But i still think federal reciprocity law is the wrong way to approach it. It is of dubious Constitutionality and opens the door to the possibility of the aforementioned restrictions.

Remember, the voters of NJ have decided they don't want non-residents carrying in their state. I don't believe residents of other states have the right to tell them otherwise. After all, the states are supposed to be sovereign.

I've seen many threads complaining of Californians moving to places like Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado and ruining their states. Can't the people of NJ raise the same objections about outsiders?

I think the best federal law can do and stay Constitutional, is that under 'full faith and credit' require states to issue licenses (if they do) to non-residents under the same requirements as residents. For example, to carry in NJ, a non resident would have to submit to the same requirements as residents, and in turn NJ would be required to issue licenses to all that meet their requirement independent of residence status.

That would open the possibility that to carry in 50 states you would need 50 licenses. Of course states are free to enter into reciprocity agreements, just as the do with driver's licenses. But they can't be required to.

 

[AZretired]

Here's how I see it (At least until the first test case), if the law passes as is, NY will say their 10 round max and no hollow points are the law and they will enforce it. So if I decide to take a road trip and go through NY & NJ ( I have relatives there) and I choose to take a Glock 19, I would have to carry 10 rd mags loaded with ball ammo the entire trip, Because what do I do with the HP rounds and 15 rd mags while I'm in a state that doesn't allow possession of them?
Right now my permit is good in 40 states, I'm good with that!

 

[sigp220.45]

Right now my permit is good in 40 states, I'm good with that!

If you are a retired cop, your permit (LEOSA) is good in all 50 states.

 

[SMSgt]

If I read your previous statement correctly I would have to honor NJ laws by carrying what is considered legal in NJ. However, I don't own much of anything that's considered legal in NJ. I can't carry my ammo there. I also can't carry my mags there. I'm not the guys who's interested in changing up his carry gun just because. I carry the same gun all day, all year for the last decade. It's what I know, it's what works. I don't want to carry a G17 today and a Shield tomorrow and a revolver the day after....

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Your options would be to carry what is legal in NJ, don't go there (My personal favorite), or to go there without carrying, which is your current situation. If you refuse to carry there because you won't pick up a NJ-legal mag and a box of FMJ ammo, that's on you--not the reciprocity bill.

 

[SMSgt]

C'mon.... let's get serious.

I can't even begin to imagine what level of draconian law and onerous requirements would satisfy NJ to welcome us hillbillies from Tennessee carrying Glocks with 17rd mags loaded with "cop killer bullets" into the Garden State. A guy would have to have a pretty active imagination to go that far. Go ahead, give it a shot.

If hell froze over and NJ decided to honor your TN permit, you'd still have to comply with NJ state carry and firearm law, just as you would with any other stat4 that currently honors your TN permit.

The national reciprocity bill is about your right to conceal carry in all states, not what you choose to carry. That always has been, and still will be, left up to the individual states.

 

[Arik]

Your options would be to carry what is legal in NJ, don't go there (My personal favorite), or to go there without carrying, which is your current situation. If you refuse to carry there because you won't pick up a NJ-legal mag and a box of FMJ ammo, that's on you--not the reciprocity bill.

I refuse to because the 10 round mags were an afterthought. The company had to scramble to make 10 round mags in 94 when they didn't exist before. Those mags aren't the most reliable even though they're OEM. And I just don't feel like having to carry extra boxes and mags in my car. They don't take up space but it's just a hassle. If I can carry 10 + an unlimited number of 10 round spare mags why can't I carry one that 15 or 17

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[LostintheOzone]

From my reading, my interpretation of the phrase 'full faith and credit' simply means a citizen of one state is a citizen of all the states. I don't believe it means that one state has the authority to extend its authority into the jurisdiction of another state. There is no reciprocity of professional licenses, I don't think there is any Constitutional reason that CCW should be any different.

Exactly, a citizen of one state has the same opportunity to do the same thing (practice law etc.) if they meet the requirements of that state. I have a professional license in WA and I can practice in CA. if I meet their requirements. I have to be vetted by a state board and pass a written test. Because each state has set different standards for a permit (license) a federal law can only work if there are federal standards, just like states have. Some states have different requirements for the profession I worked in because they have unique legal situations related to the ownership of land. A one-size-fits all standard for a carry permit would have to be taken to the most extreme case of qualification to encompass every states requirements. That's why there is no nat'l license for doctors, engineers or attorneys. You probably wouldn't be able to pass the test. A majority of people can't even pass some state exams.

The reason these state laws exist is to protect the public. That will be the same reason the states will use to sink HR-38 if it becomes law. They used public safety to keep AR's banned in some states and they will use it again in court and the outcome will predictably be the same.

Another thing to consider. States aren't complying with federal law now. What makes anyone think that they will in the case of a Nat'l reciprocity law. Anyone remember the 55 mph nat'l speed limit law?

 

[oneounceload]

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

And see how much they have morphed from their original intent and purpose? Why do some here think that won't happen with any Fed law.

As to forcing NJ? SUE and keep suing until SCOTUS or whomever tells them enough is enough. You don't alter things for everyone because of a few bad players; you change those player's attitude.