Justifying Concealed Carry Reciprocity

[LostintheOzone]

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.

I had the same thought along those lines. My thought was that congress can't force a state to change their standards for concealed carry. The Senate version of HR 38 (S 446) is somewhat more inline with "when in Rome" than HR 38.

“(b) Conditions And Limitations.—The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

My interpretation of this clause is that all of the laws of the state you are carrying in apply, including magazine restrictions, types of firearms, types of ammo, where you can carry, etc. In other words you get a pass on the permit but nothing else. Screw up on the details and you could be prosecuted by the state.

The fed really can't regulate, nor enforce the laws of a state, nor do they want to. That's the reason the 55 mph federal speed limit failed. It was a federal law that couldn't be enforced by the federal gov't. It's the same with pot laws. A business is selling pot to adults about 5 miles from my door and they have a state license to do that. Just pay the tax.

Anything that will pass in the senate will have to be in agreement with the conditions of carry of the particular state you happen to be in. Otherwise it's dead. Does anyone honestly believe a senator is going to sell out the citizens of his state who have put in place the restrictions that state legislators have enacted? Not going to happen.

And your permit will probably end up in a federal database just so the state can check it when they run your DL. The state will make sure of that. A DOL database in my state already puts my CPL on my DL. Imagine that.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

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.

The fly in the ointment is most states that aren't reciprocity-friendly are May Issue. New Jersey has about 10 million residents. Last time I read there was a total of around a thousand active carry permits which I'm guessing is for the elite or well connected. Not much help for non-residents to qualify for the same denial as residents.

National Reciprocity sounds nice and I'd like to see everyone freely carry wherever they wish. I'm just not sure there's a good way to implement a bad legislative idea no matter how well intentioned.

 

[GaryS]

The 55mph speed limit didn't "fail", it was repealed. The way the federal government got states to enforce it was by tying it to federal highway funds. If a state didn't enforce the speed limit, they were at risk of losing highway funding. It's the same mechanism that the federal government used to get states to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21.

There are numerous other examples of the federal government "encouraging" the states to enact laws by tying them to federal funding.

Congress could do the same by tying federal law enforcement money, of which there is a large amount each year, to passing laws regarding reciprocity. Of course, that won't happen.

The fed really can't regulate, nor enforce the laws of a state, nor do they want to. That's the reason the 55 mph federal speed limit failed. It was a federal law that couldn't be enforced by the federal gov't. It's the same with pot laws. A business is selling pot to adults about 5 miles from my door and they have a state license to do that. Just pay the tax.

 

[sigp220.45]

Wow, I’m glad us cops didn’t overthink LEOSA like ya’ll are doing. It passed, and I can carry my stuff from sea to shining sea.

Good luck! As I said before I think it is a moot point because the 60 votes aren’t there. But you have met the enemy, and it is you.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Wow, I’m glad us cops didn’t overthink LEOSA like ya’ll are doing. It passed, and I can carry my stuff from sea to shining sea.

Good luck! As I said before I think it is a moot point because the 60 votes aren’t there. But you have met the enemy, and it is you.

If I were a retired cop I'd probably want to carry my stuff with me also. You need LEOSA. If I'm not mistaken you have to qualify every year. Who's going to do that for a carry permit if there's a fee involved? Typical federal regulations.

 

[transit]

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.

I'm not even at the micro-level of asking about permits. That's details. I'm bouncing around world-views.

What does "carry more weight" mean? I'm little interested in the, "when in Rome" view.

That's just me.

Rome was a republic. It did not end that way.

-Aren't you still saying that if the mob in NJ chooses to abridge a citizen's natural rights, then they are free to do so?

Does "when in Rome" mean that our cops can waterboard you, if you're from across the state line? Your cops may not be able to, but that's their problem.

Isn't that the entire point of our Republic, vs. a "democracy" ? -Universal founding principles?

How I'm reading this makes me VERY uncomfortable.

 

[sigp220.45]

If I were a retired cop I'd probably want to carry my stuff with me also. You need LEOSA. If I'm not mistaken you have to qualify every year. Who's going to do that for a carry permit if there's a fee involved? Typical federal regulations.

Yep, once a year I pony up 40 bucks and shoot with my fellow geezers at the local Sheriff’s Office range. They give me a LEOSA card that works wherever I go. Maybe it is all part of some big government “show me your papers” scheme to deny me of my rights, but if so it seems like a bass-ackwards way to do it.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

= If I'm not mistaken you have to qualify every year. Who's going to do that for a carry permit if there's a fee involved? Typical federal regulations.

Some states, including here in Tennessee, issue lifetime carry permits. In contrast, LEOSA offers a view into Federal thinking that an individual cannot be trusted to carry a gun for a period extending more than 12 months.

While some might view LEOSA as a good example to support a national reciprocity scheme, I see it as a chilling example of why not to support Federal meddling in a national reciprocity scheme.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Wow, I’m glad us cops didn’t overthink LEOSA like ya’ll are doing. It passed, and I can carry my stuff from sea to shining sea.

Good luck! As I said before I think it is a moot point because the 60 votes aren’t there. But you have met the enemy, and it is you.

Trust me. There are plenty of LEOSA overthinkers out there . . .

 

[Muss Muggins]

Yep, once a year I pony up 40 bucks and shoot with my fellow geezers at the local Sheriff’s Office range. They give me a LEOSA card that works wherever I go. Maybe it is all part of some big government “show me your papers” scheme to deny me of my rights, but if so it seems like a bass-ackwards way to do it.

$40 to LEOSA qualify? Don't tell St. Louis County PD . . .

 

[LostintheOzone]

Some states, including here in Tennessee, issue lifetime carry permits. In contrast, LEOSA offers a view into Federal thinking that an individual cannot be trusted to carry a gun for a period extending more than 12 months.

While some might view LEOSA as a good example to support a national reciprocity scheme, I see it as a chilling example of why not to support Federal meddling in a national reciprocity scheme.

In time most states will stop trying to regulate concealed carry as you pointed out in post #69. When the state does a cost-benefit analysis they see it's a loser. I'm sure the 11 states that don't require a permit did their homework and found that permits don't change who is and who isn't going to commit a felony with a firearm. Probably why TN issues a lifetime permit, so they can defer some of the administrative costs (tax dollars and fees) associated with those permits. Over half the states have introduced or passed legislation to do away with CC permits.

https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/HORIZONTAL-FINAL-state-of-permitless-carry.png

The fact is some states will forever be a no mans land for concealed carry and congress isn't going to change that for the average citizen. The only way that will happen is if the federal courts rule on the issue.

 

[sigp220.45]

$40 to LEOSA qualify? Don't tell St. Louis County PD . . .

They qualify their own retirees for free. Since I am an orphaned feebie I'm just happy they do it.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The fact is some states will forever be a no mans land for concealed carry and congress isn't going to change that for the average citizen. The only way that will happen is if the federal courts rule on the issue.

I think so.

If the Feds think they can legislatively force NJ to allow Tennesseans to carry in their state, let them first demonstrate it by forcing NJ to allow their own citizens to carry. Until I see Federal troops being dispatched to NJ holding authorities at gunpoint while they issue permits... I ain't buying it.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Well gun owners didn't overthink NFA, or GCA for the most part nothing was heard. NOW today we see how that compliance cost us.

I think Ronald Reagan had a catch phrase for government coming to our aid.

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

If we don't watch our backs, nobody else will.

 

[johngalt]

I'm not even at the micro-level of asking about permits. That's details. I'm bouncing around world-views.

What does "carry more weight" mean? I'm little interested in the, "when in Rome" view.

That's just me.

Rome was a republic. It did not end that way.

-Aren't you still saying that if the mob in NJ chooses to abridge a citizen's natural rights, then they are free to do so?

Does "when in Rome" mean that our cops can waterboard you, if you're from across the state line? Your cops may not be able to, but that's their problem.

Isn't that the entire point of our Republic, vs. a "democracy" ? -Universal founding principles?

How I'm reading this makes me VERY uncomfortable.

You're reading much more in there than what I said.

A registered voter's voice has more weight as to what laws the NJ representatives should pass than a non resident. You think that NJ should take their orders from someone in PA or somewhere else?

When in Rome means while in Rome, you follow the laws of Rome. If a non-resident isn't willing to follow the laws of NJ, including their carry laws, then don't go there.

I'm not sure where you got the notion that I said laws should be applied differently to non-residents compared to residents. I said the exact opposite, and that is one of the reasons I'm opposed to the reciprocity bill. The bill DOES treat residents and non-residents differently under the law. People carrying in NJ should be required to comply with NJ law, not the laws of wherever they came from.

Yes, the U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is dictatorship by the majority, while under a Republic we have natural rights that the majority can't abridge. NJ is may-issue, and in my opinion a violation of those rights. The corrective action is to A) convince NJ voters to elect people who are willing to change it, or B) take them to court like McDonald vs. Chicago. The reciprocity bill is a bad (and IMHO unconstitutional) solution.

 

[transit]

It seems from your last paragraph that we actually agree.

My premise was simply that the voters in any given state do not have the right to violate the fundamental rights of any citizen.

-Theoretically of course, as obviously they do it all the time.

 

[Bill Lear]

I wonder why all the other Amendments to the Bill of Rights are interpreted with great liberalness, yet the Second is interpreted with extreme narrowness at both the Federal and State's level.

Also interesting is how when it suits them, the Federal government is quick to use the 14th Amendment to force the States into more "liberal" compliance with such things as "freedom of expression," but feel no such urgency in preventing States from enacting ever more restrictive gun laws.

I don't see a Federal national reciprocity carry law doing much to limit State restrictions and bans unless written with very clear intention, and even then it will take years to wend its way through court in the eventual hope the Supreme court decides to hear it it!

 

[s&wchad]

Folks,
Keep your comments focused on reciprocity and the 2A.
DO NOT drag banned hot-button topics into the discussion.

From the rules:

The following topics are BANNED on this Board:
Abortion
Religion
Racial issues
Gay rights/homosexuality
General LEO bashing
Political Discussion and Comment
Do NOT participate in discussion of banned topics.

2nd Amendment issues and causes can be discussed in the 2nd Amendment forum.

 

[THREEDFLYER]

My 1.5 cents.......

It may have already been expressed, but think about having the FEDS controlling concealed carry in ALL states......what happens when the next administration decides to repeal that?

At least having all states individually control their own concealed carry laws you have options......

I don't want my concealed carry rights being decided upon exclusively by the FEDS.

Just sayin....

 

[AZretired]

$40 to LEOSA qualify? Don't tell St. Louis County PD . . .

While the feds regulate LEOSA they do not set fees. Cost me $20 a year in AZ and over 100 in Michigan. So I went to a regular State CCW here.

As for DL's the feds don't actually regulate that either states signed on to an "Interstate Compact" many years ago agreeing to recognize each other's DL. Full faith & credit is for Court documents like child custody, divorce, TRO's.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk