But the petition is being presented to the federal govt (WH.gov). For the gov to do this, wouldnt they frame the means?
As far as ANY behavior or action goes, I want the individual to possess the primary choice & and carry the primary responsibility for his/her own decisions. I then want those choices & responsibilities to move, in descending order, from community, to county, to region, to sovereign state, and finally, with both the least control & least responsibility for the behavior or action of an individual, to Washington D.C. :yup:
In my lifetime, I have seen a steady and ever-increasing flow of discretionary power move from my house to The U.S. Capital. Why?!? They've done an almost universally crappy job with every task that they've taken away from the me. Common sense is on l-o-n-g sabbatical away from Washington D.C. What kind of fool would EVER suggest continuing to look to ANY of those bloated, clearly ineffective, openly dishonest organizations for ANY decisions about...MY BEHAVIOR?!?
Ok, I'm going to try and give a rational response as to why I do not believe this legislation is good for us.
First off, they are justifying it under their authority of interstate commerce. Not the Second Amendment. Right off the bat they are carefully avoiding the clear Constitutional path to allow for interstate concealed carry. Why? Well, they don't want to open up a path to less legislation.
The last piece of legislation was very clear in leaving the 'authority' to issue or deny permits to the individual states, which means that any state that chooses to, can continue to not issue permits. Now obviously a little has changed with the Heller ruling, but that fight is not over, so don't start counting chickens just yet. Also, you will be subject to every state's laws concerning concealed carry. So what TX, we already are, aren't we? Yes, you are. Only now, the feds don't have any say in reciprocity, so it's basically an issue between you and each state you travel in. What do you think is going to happen when New York starts raising a huge stink about all the permit holders that they've arrested for breaking their 4 round mag limit? Or their "bullets can't be in the gun" law, or whatever dumb state level law they come up with next? Well, the federal government will have an answer for that; now the reciprocity will come with a national magazine limit for interstate travel. But what about the states that don't have dumb mag cap laws? They'll be subject to the federal law anyway. Sure you'll be safe with your 15 round mag in your home state (presumably), but once you cross that border, even if there isn't a state law prohibiting 15 round mags, you'll still be subject to the federal laws that prohibit it. Will all LEOs enforce it? Probably not. But it'll be a roll of the dice with every individual officer or department as to how they handle a federal law that isn't a current state law. But what about all these state laws that keep the federal government from imposing a mag cap limit? Those are great, and they'll cover you in your own state, but they are laws written to protect the state's residents, not the state's visitors.
Or how about once the "concealed carry shooting crisis" happens and someone from one state kills someone else in a different state and the shooting didn't follow the state statutes for a legal self defense shooting? The feds will have an answer for that too; national standards and training requirements for all permits that will be honored for interstate travel. But my state doesn't have a formal test or renewal policy. Not any more, not if they want to have their permit honored in any state outside their own...
Now Hop will argue that the last piece of legislation does none of this and mentions none of this; and he's right, it doesn't. And it also doesn't prohibit the federal government from trying any of this, or all of it, once they have a "reason" to start regulating on a national level. Think it can't happen? We have 315 million people in our country; the crazed shooter with an "assault rifle" accounts for approximately 0.0000079% of our population, yet they are trying, right now, to make your semi-automatic rifles and magazines illegal because of that percentage. With a legal authority on the books (being the "national reciprocity" law), do you honestly think that the federal government won't start to sink hooks as a regulatory authority over the states?
I'm not trying to tell you what will happen. I, obviously, don't know. Neither does Hop. The only difference is I have 200 years of examples of the federal government regulating and taking away your rights to base my hypothesis on. Anytime the federal government gets an inroad, they start imposing regulation; when they can't do it directly, they force it indirectly. Speed limits are a good example.
Lastly, I'm going to ask this. Spend the time and learn what these bills are about and what they do. Please resist the urge to make educated guesses. The government doesn't do educated things, so you're off on the wrong foot and, quite frankly, it's dangerous. Your guess can turn into the next guys fact. As somewhat illustrated by the quotes below. I'm not singling them out but for an example of how a rational "idea" can easily turn into something other than the guess that it was, because in fact, Jemsaal is mistaken. The bill has absolutely nothing do to with Article IV Sec. 1. so while it sounds very reasonable, it's absolutely not where they are deriving their power for the bill. Is that actually important TX? Yeah, I think it is. To use that example, consider this. The federal government does not have any federal authority over drivers licenses. Each state comes up with some reciprocity verbiage and it's just accepted that every state does this. No federal laws concerning what each state must do, or accept. Nothing. The federal government does regulate commercial drivers licenses though and they do it with their authority under interstate commerce. Federal regulations establish minimum standards of CDL drivers’ ability and proficiency. Want that for your CCW permit? I didn't think so.
The only thing the federal government knows how to do is increase regulation, increase red tape and bureaucracy, make more laws, and more laws on top of those laws. They never offer less regulation, less red tape, or fewer laws. This bill is not a good thing.
Long story short - If they can EVER get us ALL in ONE POND, it then becomes much easier to catch us all with a...SINGLE, SWIFT net. :blink:
Unfortunately, the way the nation and states seem to recognize CC, they seem to recognize it as a privilege rather than a right anyway, and that's why we require licenses in most states (not that I agree with that status).
Is there a federal law requiring states to recognize each other's drivers licenses? Is there a federal law requiring states to recognize each other's marriage licenses?
Where I live, we have a very well thought out ccw law. I know several states which restricts carry in many more places than where I live. As it is, I am responsible for knowing and abiding by the laws of each state I carry in. A minor inconvenience I am more than willing to accept when traveling, compared to the overreaching your dear old Uncle has a propensity for doing.
Nope, a Federal Reciprocity Act would be a very bad idea, indeed. Especially considering who Hoppyard's favorite Uncle is.
Good luck getting it passed, he GEE-O-PEE just caved on the
debt ceiling.. They got no "fortitude"
2A is next.
Meanwhile, lots of us have a real need for national reciprocity. If it can be gained without agreeing to a single national
license, I think we should go for it. And even then, we still have the crazy quilt of individual state laws to deal with. It is quite
a problem practically speaking.
@Jrclen-- NO, there is no law requiring the states to recognize each others DLs. The marriage question is much more complex
because states have to give validity to the judicial acts of other states. I have no clue what happens when there has been
a civil wedding performed by a judge and another state chooses to not recognize the marriage. But, in practice the states
and the Federal government clearly all have chosen to recognize conventional marriages even when the ceremony took place
in another country. The states could, in theory, all agree to recognize each others handgun permits, but apparently that ain't gonna happen. Hence, the need for Uncle to promote 2A freedom by legislating national reciprocity.
Feds have no right to meddle in that issue. If the states can agree between each other then great but not with Federal fingers in it at all. As it stands now I can carry in just about all the lower 48 with the exception of I think 6 states. And no Feds to muddy up the puddle. Sorry but cant go for that.
My concern isn't with your convenience; it's with the rights my children will have. And their children. I'm not going to concede all the possible downsides and problems, and inroads to federal regulation so you can avoid inconvenience...
of Uncle stepping up to the plate to act against the interests of certain states which just don't want to play nice.
Yes, I'm selfish in my concern, who isn't ultimately selfish, but I also happen to believe that if we had national reciprocity,
and if no g-d-awful crime spree could be attributed to it, the whole concealed carry community would benefit and the impetus for cracking down would dissipate. Since license holders are a rather law abiding bunch, I think national reciprocity would demonstrate to the doubters and the skeptics that no further action need be taken against licensed concealed carriers.
If they were stepping up to the plate against certain states who don't want to play nice, why didn't they address the fact that states could continue to NOT allow concealed carry at all? Those are the least nice states of all, I'd think they would address those...
at getting to the goal, so be it.
Regarding your last paragraph, I have no clue what motivated anyone to choose one pathway or another, or why Uncle has
chosen to not smack IL and Hawaii down, or D.C. for that matter. But you don't get to the end of a journey by taking no
steps whatsoever, so let's take a step in the right direction and quit sabotaging our own interests with fears and 'what ifs."