National Reciprocity part Deux

This is a discussion on National Reciprocity part Deux within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by TedBeau If I understand it correctly, IF you have a CPL, and travel to another state, your CPL in effect must be ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 85

Thread: National Reciprocity part Deux

  1. #31
    Distinguished Member
    Array fastk9dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by TedBeau View Post
    If I understand it correctly, IF you have a CPL, and travel to another state, your CPL in effect must be trated as if it was from the state your in. IF the state does not issue CPL's then you don't have one there. If the state does not require a CPL to carry then you don't need yours there. If you must inform an LEO there, then you must inform an LEO.

    As far as "May Issue" states, I guess since you got yours, you would have to be considered "Eligble" in the state your in.

    It sounds pretty good to me.

    I wasn't referring to the legality of carrying into another state on your home states permit but rather the may issue states would likely get bombarded with lawsuits because out-of-towners now have more rights than their own citizens.

    I live in a may issue state and I have a restricted (target only) permit. Don't think this law would help me one bit. I'll still need my unrestricted non-resident permits if I want to carry anywhere.
    "I got a lot of problems with you people!" - Frank Costanza

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    Quote Originally Posted by TedBeau View Post
    If I understand it correctly, IF you have a CPL, and travel to another state, your CPL in effect must be trated as if it was from the state your in. IF the state does not issue CPL's then you don't have one there. If the state does not require a CPL to carry then you don't need yours there. If you must inform an LEO there, then you must inform an LEO.

    As far as "May Issue" states, I guess since you got yours, you would have to be considered "Eligble" in the state your in.

    It sounds pretty good to me.
    Ted, your interpretation makes sense to us, but I don't really think that is how the judges in the more anti states are going to see things in the event this ever passes. We all know how some of the states have so strictly interpreted the law allowing interstate transport from one point where you are allowed to possess to another as to make it impossible to go through some places without risking jail.

    I hope something like the proposed legislation passes, but the section we are discussing sure does need some cleaning up and additional specificity.

  4. #33
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    K, first, my problem regarding the gun purchase isn't due to anything the Feds have done. Its not a state's right v Fed issue. The Feds couldn't care less if a CT ffl sold me a gun. So, I'll just deal with why Austin cares; money for the retail dealers and collection of state sales taxes I suppose.
    Actually, the Gun Control Act of 1968 set up the FFL system and the classes of citizens (or non-citizens) that cannot purchase a firearm. In conjunction with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 which required background checks and ultimately the NICS system were all enacted under federal law. If these laws were not enacted, we would still be able to go to the hardware or gun store and buy a gun with not further hassle than buying a box of nails.

    I agree that for long guns, the state laws are different throughout the country. The buy a handgun in your state is, however, a federal provision (GCA '68).

    If Austin were in it strictly for the tax money, they would outlaw interstate purchases that are shipped into a TX FFL for deal consummation. These generally only net the FFL $25 to $50 depending on how greedy they are. The resulting tax would be minimal unless TX FFLs have to collect the tax and turn it over to the State - not sure about that.

    I hear what you are saying about conformity of state laws, and while this is appealing on a certain level, it it not appealing overall. Let's say we got conformity, and it was IL law that pervailed. I think many people throughout the country, not just on this board, would be pretty upset. It would not take much to get this kind of law if we had a strong federal government, which is why the founders did not construct the government that way - not to mention that the states would never have ratified a Constitution so worded.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  5. #34
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Actually, the Gun Control Act of 1968 set up the FFL system and the classes of citizens (or non-citizens) that cannot purchase a firearm. In conjunction with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 which required background checks and ultimately the NICS system were all enacted under federal law. If these laws were not enacted, we would still be able to go to the hardware or gun store and buy a gun with not further hassle than buying a box of nails.

    I agree that for long guns, the state laws are different throughout the country. The buy a handgun in your state is, however, a federal provision (GCA '68).

    If Austin were in it strictly for the tax money, they would outlaw interstate purchases that are shipped into a TX FFL for deal consummation. These generally only net the FFL $25 to $50 depending on how greedy they are. The resulting tax would be minimal unless TX FFLs have to collect the tax and turn it over to the State - not sure about that.

    I hear what you are saying about conformity of state laws, and while this is appealing on a certain level, it it not appealing overall. Let's say we got conformity, and it was IL law that pervailed. I think many people throughout the country, not just on this board, would be pretty upset. It would not take much to get this kind of law if we had a strong federal government, which is why the founders did not construct the government that way - not to mention that the states would never have ratified a Constitution so worded.
    Why assume a worst case IL like situation. There are an equal number of senators from all of the states, so it is far from certain that is what would happen. Back to the shotgun situation, at least as things were described in the other thread here, and agreed to by the one FFL in CT I spoke with, it is strictly a TX thing which makes it illegal for him to sell to me there. Now that is weird. It is like TX telling me I can't buy hamburger when I'm in some state that doesn't have a "Whataburger" chain. That's state's rights going in the wrong direction to down right tyrannical.
    Last edited by Hopyard; February 23rd, 2011 at 07:48 PM. Reason: spelling correction

  6. #35
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Midwest Area to be Precise.
    Posts
    1,218
    It is like "LEOSA" and the "Gun Owners Protection Act", UNCONTSITTUIONAL and needs to be re-appealed. Sorry but the states rights are not up for debate. Am I right?

  7. #36
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    It is like "LEOSA" and the "Gun Owners Protection Act", UNCONTSITTUIONAL and needs to be re-appealed. Sorry but the states rights are not up for debate. Am I right?
    I am not sure. Are you arguing that the states have the right to eliminate constitutionally protected rights from their citizens? What if your state passed a state constitutional amendment that said nobody but LE and military could possess guns and then only the duty weapon while on duty. Would you feel that was constitutional? This is a nuanced issue between the rights of the Feds, the state and citizens.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  8. #37
    Senior Member Array swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    930
    That's what Heller and McDonald established. The 2A applies to the states and is not negotiable and cannote be legislated away.States cannot deny you an enumerated right as it exists in the Constitution.

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,119
    As far as the states adopting "model laws" for the sake of uniformity, that's all good and well, as long as they're reasonable. My idea of reasonable probably would not fly in MD, NY, IL.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Maybe, but probably enough metal and plastic parts moved interstate to solve that problem.

    I'd prefer one drafted in much simpler language but will take this as heads above what we are doing now.
    I understand your point but I think the bill more strictly defines what constitutes interstate travel in this instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    From what I read,states and cities that have may issue permits would now have to honor anybodys CHL would be good,Bloomberg's gonna need a "Depends" if this thing passes
    IIRC even a NYS carry permit is not good in NYC. So this bill wouldn't change anything in the Big Apple; you'd still have to abide by that STATE law.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  10. #39
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    I am not sure. Are you arguing that the states have the right to eliminate constitutionally protected rights from their citizens? What if your state passed a state constitutional amendment that said nobody but LE and military could possess guns and then only the duty weapon while on duty. Would you feel that was constitutional? This is a nuanced issue between the rights of the Feds, the state and citizens.
    +1 K

    The key word here is nuanced. I'd add, this (as so many things) is a complex issue. All or nothing either way won't work.

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,044
    As much as I would like to see the rules on where you could buy a gun fixed, that's not what the bill is about.

    That being said, I'm really hoping this legislation passes. But really, it wouldn't be necessary if the courts could be counted on to defend the Constitution.

    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.
    Nationwide reciprocity isn't really even a 2a issue, so much as it's a main Constitutional issue.

  12. #41
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    As much as I would like to see the rules on where you could buy a gun fixed, that's not what the bill is about.
    That being said, I'm really hoping this legislation passes. But really, it wouldn't be necessary if the courts could be counted on to defend the Constitution.
    Nationwide reciprocity isn't really even a 2a issue, so much as it's a main Constitutional issue.
    Sorry if I introduced confusion by giving the out of state purchase example to K. I know that isn't what the bill is about. But some object to it on state's rights grounds and I was giving an example of how state laws can really mess with constitutional rights.

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Sorry if I introduced confusion by giving the out of state purchase example to K. I know that isn't what the bill is about. But some object to it on state's rights grounds and I was giving an example of how state laws can really mess with constitutional rights.
    Oh, you're right. . . the states' rights debate is a big can of worms, and I am on different sides of the debate depending on what the topic is. But, we were drifting off topic pretty quick for a thread that is about a really interesting topic :)

  14. #43
    Senior Member Array DaveJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    I am totally against a federal conceal carry law.

    Let me ask it this way...... once it's established, the States are out of it and you've just passed the States' rights to the Fedl Govt. Now, do you want to let Sen Nancy Pelosi to be able to add amendments and/or then come in and modify or even repeal that law ? Or, anything else she might want to do with it ? Or , the Nancy Pelosi 10 yrs from now ?

    I don't. Leave the States alone.
    I'm with you on being opposed to a federal CC law...but that's not what this is...

    For example, under this law, you still would not be able to CC in Illinois, as they do not issue CC permits...

    All this law does is tell the states to recognize other state permits (if they decide to issue)...

    It also keeps the states limitations (if any) intact...such as prohibitions against carrying in a church, a bar, etc if a state has those...

    It's not the final solution...but it is a step closer to one...
    Last edited by DaveJay; February 24th, 2011 at 08:33 PM. Reason: Fix word
    VCDL Member
    "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
    Theodore Roosevelt

  15. #44
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveJay View Post
    I'm with you on being opposed to a federal CC law...but that's not what this is...

    For example, under this law, you still would not be able to CC in Illinois, as they do not issue CC permits...

    All this law does is tell the states to recognize other state permits (if they decide to issue)...

    It also keeps the states limitations (if any) intact...such as prohibitions against carrying in a church, a bar, etc if a state has those...

    It's not the final solution...but it is a step loser to one...
    Yes, this isn't a Federal CC law, and as a practical step it would solve a great deal of problems. I'm not willing to let debatable constitutional issues get in the way of a real world solution. We need national reciprocity now, and this bill comes pretty darn close to achieving that.

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes, this isn't a Federal CC law, and as a practical step it would solve a great deal of problems. I'm not willing to let debatable constitutional issues get in the way of a real world solution. We need national reciprocity now, and this bill comes pretty darn close to achieving that.
    I agree on this. . . it's a good start, and I'd like to be able to carry in California which I KNOW will not happen in my lifetime if it's left up to states choosing their own reciprocity rules.

    It's that, or wait for the right cases to snake their way though the court system to finally overrule these cases on 2a, Art4/sec1 of the constitution, or Privileges/Immunities grounds. Technically, all of the above should allow us to carry open or concealed with either no permit, or a permit from our own state in any other.

    Yeah, I don't think that will happen in my lifetime either.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Craigslist Dangers - Part Deux
    By Tally XD in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 6th, 2010, 10:54 AM
  2. Glockaide Part Deux
    By Danimal in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 8th, 2009, 07:31 PM
  3. Wish me luck (part deux)
    By Concealed_23 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 11:25 PM
  4. Warning Part Deux
    By WorldPax in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 12th, 2006, 11:21 AM
  5. Tell...Don't Tell, Part Deux
    By Tom357 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 1st, 2005, 08:51 PM

Search tags for this page

h.r. 822 national reciprocity fed control

,

how is hr822 doing in washington dc

,

how would national reciprocity law work in california

,

hr 822 concealed carry reciprocity bill introduced co sponsor

,

if national reciprocity bill passes will states remove their concealed carry permits

,

last state to honor driver license reciprosity?

,

leosa is closest thing to national gun permit

,

national reciprocity duty to inform

,

national reciprocity is a state or constitutional issue?

,

national reciprocity law introduced into the house

,

national right to carry reciprocity 822 problem

,

s&w .40 120004

,

what happened to hr822 in committee

,

what happened with hr 822

Click on a term to search for related topics.