I'm not sure that I understand all this talk of violation of states' rights. States have no right to violate the second amendment, any more than the federal government does (not to say that it has stopped either one, except perhaps in a recent case involving DC).
Justifying Concealed Carry Reciprocity
- Thread starter richardw
- Start date
That's the reason I just wrote a check to the Second Amendment Foundation. They take the battle into the courts.
The NRA is supporting nat'l reciprocity. Their goal should be constitutional carry, not nat'l reciprocity. It seems very strange to me that the NRA would endorse politicians who block or veto constitutional carry.
Leading the fight for Constitutional Carry - National Association for Gun Rights
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
There is no money to be made in court enforced constitutional carry. Once that happens donations to gun rights orgs drops like a rock. Probably most gun rights orgs are OK with that, some not so much.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
The guy who posted #40 I thought made several excellent points, including an underlying motivation.
The guy who posted #40 I thought made several excellent points, including an underlying motivation.
I wouldn't listen to that guy, he's just shooting from the hip.
The guy who posted #40 I thought made several excellent points, including an underlying motivation.
Really? Where in the bill does it state any requirement or need for a "national standard"? If your concern is about big government involvement in 2A, that began the day 2A was written and continued since.
The bill seems pretty straight forward to me. But I suppose one can see a boogieman anywhere one wants to see one.
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
I would call every single piece of gun restrictions, and legislation the boogieman. The 2A has pretty much been ignored, or twisted by government, I see plenty to be concerned about.
Mr. Load,
I don't see it. On the federal level, the AWB has expired and not been replaced with new legislation, even though the controllers tried time after time. What other firearm related laws are you talking about?
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
SMSgt,
Did you read the below post earlier in the thread? The below suggests NJ will welcome with open arms us Tennessee hillbillies armed with Glocks and 17rd mags loaded with whatever ammo we wish.
Last edited:
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
It doesn't. It creates the conditions for it which have already been well explained here.
oneounceload
Member
I never said they were all firearm related. And with the ramped up use of Executive Orders over the last few administrations, I see more and more or that coming into play. And let's not forget the riders that get attached to any bill, most of which have nothing to do with the topic but are merely some political payback for a donor, etc., etc. The wrong person in office can undo a lot of things that were previously the purvey of the State, not the Fed.
Alk8944
US Veteran
Under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the constitution there should be no question about reciprocity:
Article IV, Section 1:
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.
This is why your driver license, registration, marriage, divorce, etc. are universally recognized. There is no reason a concealed firearms permit should not be included!
This is why your driver license, registration, marriage, divorce, etc. are universally recognized. There is no reason a concealed firearms permit should not be included!
You need to dig a little deeper.
SSM wasn't universally recognized until the SC said it was.
Your DL and registration isn't universally recognized because of Art IV.
There is nothing in the constitution except 10A that addresses drivers licenses and vehicle registration. They have always been regulated by the states, just as concealed carry has. There has been some action recently by congress regarding DL's however and some states have been fighting it. Real ID has set standards for states when issuing a DL. The idea is the fed wants the states to require that people getting a DL be in the US legally. The problem is the fed wants the states and applicants to pay for the vetting process. The work around has been an enhanced DL and you get to pay for the enhancement. A drivers license was never meant to be an immigration document but the fed turned it into one and they probably did it using Art IV.
See any problems yet with a federal law? It could go a thousand different directions and I will guarantee you most of us here won't like any one of them.
I keep seeing references to drivers licenses. Here's some good information about the constitution and drivers licenses.
Is there a right to travel without a driver's license in the United States?
DL's are more like concealed carry permits than people realize in that they are regulated by the states for the purpose of public safety. Several federal court decisions have enforced that regarding DL's and AR bans.
Last edited:
Responding worry about "national standard."
Not necessarily, look a HR 218 - LEOSA, functions nationwide, annual qualifications required by the state of employment or residence.
Not impossible to implement if they want to do it.
Not necessarily, look a HR 218 - LEOSA, functions nationwide, annual qualifications required by the state of employment or residence.
Not impossible to implement if they want to do it.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Unlike LEOSA, some states (example: Georgia just minutes from my doorstep) do not mandate training or testing for average Joe to carry. Are you suggesting Joe carry in those states and/or all states be subject to similar Federal mandates of LEOSA to implement national reciprocity?
(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;
LEOSA/HR 218 was/is more of a homeland security provision, allowing active and retired officers to carry firearms wherever they may be. LEOSA allows those persons to carry firearms where the average citizen would never be allowed to carry in furtherance of the security of the nation. It doesn't base itself in the 2nd Amendment . . .
Old TexMex
Member
You got that right.
Most anti gunners see LEOSA as an expansion of the security force (if they know about LEOSA at all) and all cops I have spoken to about it see it as a sensible way of allowing LEO to protect themselves after retirement.(or while still active,in case they run into some mug they’ve busted who has a grudge while travelling outof jurisdiction)
Last edited:
When this thread started i was fully in favor of this bill. After reading and thinking about some of the possible repercussions of the bill, I now have pause for thought. While I favor national reciprocity still, as well as constitutional carry, I'm not sure that this bill is the way to go about it now and may well create more problems down the road than it helps now, and I live in one of the most restrictive states that would benefit the most from it. With the real possibility of a major shift in who controls the house and senate in 2018 and possibly the presidency in 2020, the party in power may well have a "fix" for this bill in their sights as a priority.
Even here I can see this bill leading to a large increase in the types and number of places where concealed carry is not allowed.
I also see that many people are reading into this bill things that are not there, such as the bill over riding magazine capacity and hollow point bans.
Even here I can see this bill leading to a large increase in the types and number of places where concealed carry is not allowed.
I also see that many people are reading into this bill things that are not there, such as the bill over riding magazine capacity and hollow point bans.
transit
Member
That leads me to wonder: do the voters of NJ (theoretically speaking) have the power to do that? We know of course that in real terms they already have.
But could the voters of NJ decide that non-residents do not have the right to remain silent while in NJ? -Or that they may not worship while in NJ?
I would think most would say no.
Why would any natural (-and in this case enumerated) right be different?
I agree that no state should be empowered to abridge the natural rights of free citizens. However, I believe the wishes of the voters of NJ carry more weight than outsiders.
Your example of the possibility of taking away due process from non-residents - obviously that doesn't fly. However, there is nothing in the 'full faith and credit' clause that says NJ has to honor some other state's due process provisions just because they are dealing with an out of state resident. When in Rome...
Hence my thought that the best the feds can do is to require the states to issue licenses to non-residents under the same terms as residents. NJ should be able to specify the conditions under which people are licensed to carry in NJ - resident or non-resident.
Similar threads
