Revive the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

This is a discussion on Revive the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Hopyard Arrrrrrr ayyyyyeeeeeee AGain! Just because you folks don't travel and think the US should work exactly as it did in 1860 ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 75
Like Tree65Likes

Thread: Revive the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Arrrrrrr ayyyyyeeeeeee AGain! Just because you folks don't travel and think the US should work
    exactly as it did in 1860 is no excuse for messing with my (and everyone else's) potentially greatly improved ability
    to carry across the land.

    Been on this board for years. Its always the same bunch, ready to pour cold water on a good idea out of
    fear.

    LEOSA has been good. FOPA has been good. National reciprocity would be great.

    No one is suggesting that Uncle issue the licenses and NO ONE EVER HAS. The only thing being suggested is
    that every state honor licenses issued by other jurisdictions. Its a great idea and way past time.

    Duh, do they question your marriage when you go to another state? Do they stop you from driving?

    I don't get it. All you "pro 2A" folks who don't want nationwide carry permissible.

    You were for gun owner rights before you were against them? Or were against them before you were for them?

    Look, I know some of you want licensing to disappear entirely but realistically that won't happen.
    So, take a good deal when you can get it, if you can get it.
    I see what you're saying, and agree.

    But the petition is being presented to the federal govt (WH.gov). For the gov to do this, wouldnt they frame the means?
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    4,261
    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.

    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?!?
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  4. #48
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    Unless I'm mistaken - the act amends the current laws to force states to recognize Concealed Carry permits from other states. There's no federal anything. In short, this IS the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution being applied. California could no longer tell me that I couldn't carry my weapon into their state.
    Quote Originally Posted by drbald1 View Post
    Hmm....I like this kind of thinking.
    Last edited by TX expat; January 18th, 2013 at 05:28 PM.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  5. #49
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,133
    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.

  6. #50
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    4,261
    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.
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    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.
    Actually, I like the idea of them going to it under the Interstate Commerce clause. That way they are just acknowleging it like marriage and driver's licenses. They arent 'sanctioning' anything or controlling anything. And it doesnt lead to some single huge national database (not that it couldnt but marriage and driver's licenses arent kept or tracked that way...again, not that they couldnt but under that clause, what would be the reasoning?)

    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).
    Hopyard likes this.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  8. #52
    Member Array jrclen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Central Wisconsin
    Posts
    342
    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?
    Shall not be infringed means - shall not be infringed.
    Member - NRA
    John

  9. #53
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Arrrrrrr ayyyyyeeeeeee AGain! Just because you folks don't travel and think the US should work
    exactly as it did in 1860 is no excuse for messing with my (and everyone else's) potentially greatly improved ability
    to carry across the land.

    Been on this board for years. Its always the same bunch, ready to pour cold water on a good idea out of
    fear.

    LEOSA has been good. FOPA has been good. National reciprocity would be great.

    No one is suggesting that Uncle issue the licenses and NO ONE EVER HAS. The only thing being suggested is
    that every state honor licenses issued by other jurisdictions. Its a great idea and way past time.

    Duh, do they question your marriage when you go to another state? Do they stop you from driving?

    I don't get it. All you "pro 2A" folks who don't want nationwide carry permissible.

    You were for gun owner rights before you were against them? Or were against them before you were for them?

    Look, I know some of you want licensing to disappear entirely but realistically that won't happen.
    So, take a good deal when you can get it, if you can get it.
    You really don't see the possibility of your favorite Uncle, once he has enacted a National Reciprocity Act, coming back at a later time and enacting a new Federal law specifiying all the places you are allowed to carry? You know, just to make things more "standardized." You just don't see that happening, eh?

    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.
    1MoreGoodGuy and jrclen like this.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  10. #54
    Member
    Array finst3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sarasota FL
    Posts
    366
    Good luck getting it passed, he GEE-O-PEE just caved on the
    debt ceiling.. They got no "fortitude"
    2A is next.

  11. #55
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    You really don't see the possibility of your favorite Uncle, once he has enacted a National Reciprocity Act, coming back at a later time and enacting a new Federal law specifiying all the places you are allowed to carry? You know, just to make things more "standardized." You just don't see that happening, eh?

    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.
    Anything horrible is possible. We are a nation which condoned and even exalted slavery under the very same constitution we have today-- minus the post civil war amendments. Anything is possible.
    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.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #56
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,600
    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.

  13. #57
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Anything horrible is possible. We are a nation which condoned and even exalted slavery under the very same constitution we have today-- minus the post civil war amendments. Anything is possible.
    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.
    Fortunately Hop, most of us think past our own wants. You've said more than once that you support this because it would benefit you; it's the only way you'll ever see the ability to travel with your firearm to the states that you find important to visit.

    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...
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  14. #58
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Fortunately Hop, most of us think past our own wants. You've said more than once that you support this because it would benefit you; it's the only way you'll ever see the ability to travel with your firearm to the states that you find important to visit.

    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...
    National reciprocity would be an example of Uncle promoting 2A and not inhibiting it. It would be a concrete example
    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 the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #59
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    National reciprocity would be an example of Uncle promoting 2A and not inhibiting it. It would be a concrete example
    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.
    Wow. If they were promoting the Second Amendment, why didn't they bother mentioning it. Why did they very specifically draw their "power" to create the legislation from Interstate Commerce? Doesn't seem very Pro 2A to not even mention it in such a pro-2A law.

    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...
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  16. #60
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Wow. If they were promoting the Second Amendment, why didn't they bother mentioning it. Why did they very specifically draw their "power" to create the legislation from Interstate Commerce? Doesn't seem very Pro 2A to not even mention it in such a pro-2A law.

    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...
    Ever hear the expression "there's more than one way to skin a cat?" If using the commerce clause is more expedient
    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."
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •  

Search tags for this page

2013 national right to carry reciprocity act
,
national carry reciprocity 2013
,

national right to carry 2013

,
national right to carry act 2013 progress
,
national right to carry reciprocity act
,

national right to carry reciprocity act 2013

,
national right to carry reciprocity act senate 2013
,

national right to carry reciprocity act status

,
reciprocity-chart for maryland drivers license
,
right to carry reciprocity act 2013
,
sites supporting the nation ccw reciprocity act
,
status of reciprocity act
Click on a term to search for related topics.