Don't get your hopes up on this one......don't see it passing
This is a discussion on National Reciprocity part Deux within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Don't get your hopes up on this one......don't see it passing...
Don't get your hopes up on this one......don't see it passing
"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington
That's exactly why I don't see this having any chance of passing.
While I like the idea of all states having to honor all other states permits, I think I can say that I do not believe this will pass.
The comparison has often been made that this would be like all the states honoring the others driver's license. But that analogy is flawed because each state has very similar criterion for obtaining a DL. Same or similar rules and laws governing driving a car. Same or very similar procedures to obtain the DL. Written test, driving test etc... The same can not be said for each states requirements for obtaining a permit to carry a gun. Tennessee requires 8 hours of instruction, 4 in the classroom and 4 practical on the range with a written test and a practical shooting test. Prints taken, $115 fee paid to the state with a background check. Permit issued by the state. Takes about 45 days to get re permit.
Alabama has no training requirement at all. In fact, when we lived there I walked into the county Sheriffs office and paid $20, filled out a 3X5 card, had my prints taken and my photo taken and walked out of the office 30 minutes later with my permit.
Indiana has no training requirement, is issued by the state but administered by county, prints taken (I did them myself with no one watching me by the way, I could have had anyone put prints down for me) paid my $45 and the forms and prints got sent off. That was Jan 14th and I am still waiting for my permit to arrive.
So I can see this never getting passed on the simple, and I think valid point that a state like Tennessee would HAVE to honor a permit from a state like Alabama or Indiana that doesn't require its permit holders to receive any training at all. (Tennessee already does this because Tennessee is awesome and freedom loving and upholding but I just used it as an example) The Democratic Peoples Republik of Illinois will never go along with this because they would have to honor the permit of any other state when they themselves refuse to let their own subjects carry the tool best suited for personal defense.
I just don't see it happening. And I'm not sure it should. Though inconvenient to play the game of finding a route that allows us to carry all the way from our departure point to destination, I much prefer that to having the Federal Government involved in any way with agreements between states on any gun related issue.
Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution mandates that states extend "full faith and credit" to all other states acts. This is how divers licenses are recognized nationwide. No mention is made of training. Second, the P & I clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't specify training. It simply says no state can abridge the Constitutionalrights of the resident of any state.
But we all know that the last thing any politician does is follow the law or even bother to read our Constitution.
We'll have to wait and see. Please write your Representative if you want to try to get this passed.
The driver's license reciprocity happens via agreements among the states, like our current reciprocity laws, not by federal legislation.The comparison has often been made that this would be like all the states honoring the others driver's license.
I agree, I don't trust the feds to get involved with this. Simplify now, pay later :(
I also scratch my head that it will be easier for out of state people to carry here (no training) than it is for residents. OTOH, I do believe that all of the training and licensing requirements violate "Shall not be infringed." Unfortunately the SC court did approve "reasonable restrictions" :( What's "reasonable" to Bloomberg and Pelosi is not reasonable IMO.
I am against the Federal Government getting into the Permit business in any way.
The government is in the business of trying to be fair, or making everybody happy.
Fair always goes to the lowest level, look at public education.
Fair is not that we all drive BMWs.
Fair isn't even that we all drive Fords (some of us don't drive.)
Fair is that we all ride the bus. Until the bus drivers find out about fair.
Then we all walk. Fair is that we all walk (because some don't drive.)
Get the allegory?
Now, remembering that some of us don't carry guns, define fair for carry by the logic above.
Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.
"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
This was posted up on Constitution Watch on Feb 20. HR 822 was immediately passed to committee where the vast majority of bills die. No movement as yet.
While it sounds good, there is only a VERY small chance of passing the Senate, and even if it does, Obama will veto it.
Don’t look for any movement in either House or Senate as both are really tied up in budget/funding affairs. Unless reconciled, the Federal Government will shutdown on Mar 4.
Now, if it goes through The Senate and any needed Senate House conference and gets laden with amendments and pork and the bill is no longer clean, then sure, it might well deserve to be vetoed.
Now a veto is a different story. I think he would veto it in a red second if it weren't for the fact that he knows he's going to have a tough reelection campaign. The question is, if it does make it to his desk, is will he be afraid to veto it, or will he stick to his campaign promises?
This little quote is one I personally took off 'change.gov', Obama's President-Elect website, and he moved it to Whitehouse.gov after he took office:
Eventually it got removed, probably once he realized that he wouldn't get a chance to pass a bill doing this, because the bill would never make it to him in the first place.Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Edit: huh. . . change.gov is still up, I thought it got taken down. http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
Last edited by livewire; February 26th, 2011 at 01:44 PM. Reason: Added link
You put this up--"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners,"
National reciprocity as described in the bill posted by the OP wold be consistent with respecting the 2A rights of gun owners. I don't think a veto would be forthcoming if there were a clean bill passed and sent forward.
You are entitled to mind read and prognosticate, as anyone else, but all any of us can do is guess and speculate, and that includes my own stated views--- speculation and not more.
"commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners" is a fairly common gun-control catchphrase for "Common Sense dictates that people shouldn't own guns"
From Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence : About
That quote I posted above shows intent that Obama is as interested in gun control as we all say. I know you have a roses and lollipops view of them, and don't really have a problem with gun control anyway, but the rest of us kinda discourage itThe Brady Campaign works to pass and enforce sensible federal and state gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence.
Last edited by livewire; February 26th, 2011 at 03:25 PM. Reason: clarification
Here is part of a commentary from the DUF digest, extracted from the NRAILA:
see NRA-ILA :: The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill(...While this bill would not create a federal licensing system, I fear that, in a more hostile environment, it could be amended to establish federal standards for state issuance – including certification of need – with a financial penalty for states that do not comply. I’m uncomfortable with getting the federal government involved in this issue. ...)
I can't find that quoted part in the link you posted, where did it come from?
You are right, it's not there :( Usually Stephen Wenger's digest is reliable. I'll ask him about it. Sorry.