Federal reciprocity from a "May issue" states.
This is a discussion on Federal reciprocity from a "May issue" states. within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; point of view.
I was reading in another thread about an act in congress that would force a state to recognize another states CCW permit. ...
September 12th, 2006 01:12 PM
Federal reciprocity from a "May issue" states.
point of view.
I was reading in another thread about an act in congress that would force a state to recognize another states CCW permit. I didn't want to hijack the thread so I fugured I would ask it here.
How do you think the "may issue" states would handle that.
Would they then have to go shall issue?
Would they "grandfather" the present permit holder until expiration and then just not renew their permits?
Would they just revoke all permits and make it Illegal under any circumstances to CCW?
I like the idea of 100% reciprocity but I wonder if it would just force Annapolis's hand?
September 12th, 2006 01:26 PM
[cynic mode] I would fully expect Mike that ''may issues'' would find a way to wriggle out of any compliance [/cynic mode].
100% reciprocity is I fear a pipe dream, plus probably actually in the end broadly loosing us liberties rather than gaining more.
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
September 12th, 2006 01:34 PM
yeah, your probably right. I just can't stop hoping though
September 12th, 2006 02:46 PM
I'm not even sure that it is a completely good idea. Before reciprocity would be a good idea, IMO, all the states that "shall issue" would need to agree upon a unifying set of carry-able places. If that does't happen you may accidentally wander into a township that has an odd law you didn't know about and be jailed on felony posession charges.
The Gunsite Blog
ITFT / Quick Kill Review
"It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." - Justice Scalia, SCOTUS - DC v Heller - 26 JUN 2008
September 12th, 2006 02:58 PM
I think that because of the may-issue and no-issue states we will not realistically see a federal law. It would be immediately challenged in the courts under states rights, and probably tossed out.
EOD - Initial success or total failure
September 12th, 2006 04:06 PM
Concerning this issue, my question has always been 'do we really want more federal government in our lives'?
More and more states are coming around. I can live with things the way they are, and---consider 218. Some major cities have refused to honor this federal law concerning LEOs.
Do you really think the fiefdoms of Chicago, NY, etc really care what the federal law says????
September 12th, 2006 04:32 PM
September 12th, 2006 04:37 PM
I wondered if it would remove more liberties. I was thinking of marriage licenses and drivers licenses and how they have to be recognized in all 51 states (talking marriages between a man and a women, I don't want someone to point out about the other issue).
About the only difference between a CCW and DL is a DL is not a right. But, since the 2nd is a Right, then it should be recognized anyway in all 51 states.
So, I was thinking that a federal law would be needed because it would just reinforce the 2nd and make it the law of the land again.
Or I could be way off base. I'm at work, tired, and haven't slept in days lol.
September 12th, 2006 06:46 PM
Wayne, somehow you have added a state to the list.
From what I am hearing, the bill has become so cruded up with ammendments, and other junk, that it will never pass.
September 12th, 2006 09:14 PM
September 12th, 2006 10:18 PM
Wow, I came in late on this thread...is the 51st state NYC? Oh please....say it is so!!!
(from an upstate NYer)
September 12th, 2006 10:36 PM
I must apologize. The 51st state is an inside joke with me and a co-worker. When typing the post, my mind (I said I was tired, haven't slept in over 2 days) automatically added the "51st state".
The joke is about illegal immigration, Mexico, and open borders. He is saying that borders should be open on the Mexican side, for everyone to come and go as they please. We have made a few people uncomfortable (those that don't like my stating that we need to close the borders, his on making them basically a part of the US) so we call Mexico the 51st state.
Again, my apologies, a sleep deprived mind wonders around quite a bit.
September 13th, 2006 01:05 AM
We do not need a law all we need it the US Supreme Court to rule that the 2nd amendment means exactly what it says, and that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" includes me bearing my Kimber in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.
"Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."
September 13th, 2006 02:57 AM
51st state: The District of Columbia
"Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud..."
-Jeff Cooper, "The Art of the Rifle"
September 13th, 2006 09:44 AM
I don't see that there's really much problem with states having differing laws about where you may or may not carry. After all, your driver's license is good in all 50 states, yet traffic laws do vary significantly from state to state (Is a right turn allowed on a red light? What's the allowable BAC? Getting onto a freeway, which car has right of way?) When you're in a state not your own, you obey that state's traffic laws; ignorance of these laws is no excuse. You could do the same with concealed carry.
The bigger problem is the very different rules about obtaining the permit in the first place. Washington, for instance, requires fingerprints/background check, but does not require a training class. New Hampshire requires neither. Colorado requires both. Even among states which require training classes, content and length and the amount of state control over individual classes vary remarkably.
My suspicion is that any national carry permit would, on average, cost us more freedom than it would gain us. But I say this as a resident of a fairly permissive state -- I'm pretty sure a MA resident would have a different take on it. Any change in MA rules would have to be an improvement!
If nationwide carry passes, but the nationally-requires rules become too onerous, it would be a net loss. Vermont & Alaska have the right idea, after all. That is the goal to work for ...
By Will B. Droopy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 1st, 2010, 08:44 PM
By brianko in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: June 25th, 2009, 08:34 PM
By cyberdogg in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 03:40 PM
By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: February 15th, 2009, 11:36 AM
By HotGuns in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: November 4th, 2007, 09:51 AM
Search tags for this page
definition of reperocity
Click on a term to search for related topics.