Will USSC 2A decision facilitate reciprocity laws?

This is a discussion on Will USSC 2A decision facilitate reciprocity laws? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; They "were"... but they may be challenged. In fact the entire concept of requiring a Permit to carry is now on shakey ground. The whole ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36

Thread: Will USSC 2A decision facilitate reciprocity laws?

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,188
    They "were"... but they may be challenged. In fact the entire concept of requiring a Permit to carry is now on shakey ground. The whole concept of reciprocity rests on the validity of "permits to carry for self defense" being even legal. So if the right exists for any... then the right exists anywhere...

    No... if it is a right then it is a right. Anywhere and anyway infringing is a violation of that right. In fact it was so understood that many did not bother and they even fought over whether they neve needed to say it! Really it now is all up for grabs. It opens up a big can of worms don't it? There is a large section on why it is assumed in many states and then specifically included in others... the result is, that it was a forgone conclusion in all when the Constitution was written.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    They "were"... but they may be challenged.
    The could always be challenged. That is how Heller went forward. Now, state laws can be challenged [again] and the lawyers can use Heller as a precedent to further their argument. But the Heller decision only applies to the Federal Constitution and the Heller case in particular.

    In fact the entire concept of requiring a Permit to carry is now on shakey ground. The whole concept of reciprocity rests on the validity of "permits to carry for self defense" being even legal. So if the right exists for any... then the right exists anywhere...
    The right exists but that does not guarantee it is protected. The right exists in England, but they are prohibited from carrying guns.

    I realize that the euphoria from this opinion (and that is all it is, an opinion) has not yet dissipated, but to think that state laws will suddenly change is wishful thinking to the extreme.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,188
    Not so really... it applies to state law too...

    [i]“The right to bear arms has always been the dis-
    tinctive privilege of freemen. Aside from any neces-
    sity of self-protection to the person, it represents
    among all nations power coupled with the exercise of a
    certain jurisdiction. . . . t was not necessary that the
    right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitu-
    tion, for it had always existed.” J. Ordronaux, Consti-
    tutional Legislation in the United States 241–242
    (1891).


    England does not recognize nor apply to this standard anymore. And surely could attempt to challenge it themselves if they wish to go back. That right, in essence, fails to be recognized by them at this point.

    Who says any particular states law will change suddenly? Anyone say that? Not me...

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,177
    I hate to say it but this is why I will never step foot in Washington DC until I can legally carry to protect me or my loved ones I won't give them a dime
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  6. #20
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    England does not recognize nor apply to this standard anymore. And surely could attempt to challenge it themselves if they wish to go back. That right, in essence, fails to be recognized by them at this point.
    And New Jersey does not recognize or apply the standard either. My point is that the Federal Constitution does not usurp state constitutions in areas other than those specifically stated (and there is no conflict.)

    Who says any particular states law will change suddenly? Anyone say that? Not me...
    The road to change is the same as it was before Heller. The people need to elect representatives and leaders that respect our God given rights. Having courts overturn the will of the people, as legislated by duly elected representatives, is never a good thing.

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,407
    It is going to be an interesting next 4 years to say the least.

    I am not a lawyer or legal interpreter by any means, but it does seem that the Feds and States can still effectively get the ban on guns in place.

    Choose your evils come November.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Chevy-SS View Post
    Just curious how many think the terrific USSC decision will facilitate (or even force) reciprocity agreements between additional states?
    No, I don't. "Reasonableness" will be debated until everyone's blue in the face. Count on it.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #23
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849
    The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.........'nuff said. The ball has started it's roll down hill.

    Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning..... QUOTE BY Winston Churchill
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

  10. #24
    Member Array DarinD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Franklin County, PA
    Posts
    156
    This is still a VERY small step and there is a long way to go for us who believe in CC and the 2nd. Through faith, prayer, and patience, we should prevail. If we could just get something going on the may issue(refuse to issue) state level, i.e. MD, NY, NJ. I still cannot believe that the LIBS/Antis are still trying to stand on the thought that this will only increase the crime rate, even when all the stats are out there proving that it will DECREASE the crime rate.
    Life is too short, stop to smell the roses and don't let anyone take it away from you!

  11. #25
    Member Array JayHawker45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    Yeah, I'm pretty happy about Heller but they DID NOT incorporate it under the 14th Amendment which in essence only guarantees the right under the Bill of Rights insofar as the Federal Government is concerned. Basically it does not overturn the 20,000 local and state gun laws that still ban weapons in cities like Morton Grove, IL. The reason that NRA is launching all these lawsuits right now is to drain the antis of cash that they could use in the general election on behalf of OBAMANATION.
    The next court which looks at the issue of incorporation will do as footnote 23 suggests and do a 14th amendment analysis and very likely declare it applies to the states. If the lower courts donít incorporate the 2nd Amendment, I am 99% positive the U.S. Supreme court will.

    I think we will see the issue of incorporation coming up fairly quickly, as the NRA has already launched a case against Chicago, and almost certainly, New York and San Francisco are next.
    Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But, I repeat myself. ...Mark Twain: Manuscript note, c.1882.
    NRA Life Member & JPFO Member.
    Sig & CZ-aholic, a Ruger SP101 3" & Wiley Clapp GP100

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array MR D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    864
    we still face the problem that my right to possess (keep and bear) arms
    is basically denied/abridged/changed every time that I (a United States Citizen) travel from state to state...

    I have a driver's license in Ohio, given under state authority and the "full faith and credit clause" ensures that said license is accepted/respected by the other 49 states and the various territories, possessions and protectorates. This also applies to my Marriage license. Why not my CHL?

    (my best guess is that not all 50 states recognize a "right" to carry a concealed handgun)

    DC is a victory. Did it go far enough? Not for my desires - but DC is only the first bite in eating this elephant, Chicago - hopefully is the second, then NY, San Francisco... Bon Appetit!

  13. #27
    Member Array aquanomics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    36

    Maybe, maybe not

    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    Yeah, I'm pretty happy about Heller but they DID NOT incorporate it under the 14th Amendment which in essence only guarantees the right under the Bill of Rights insofar as the Federal Government is concerned. Basically it does not overturn the 20,000 local and state gun laws that still ban weapons in cities like Morton Grove, IL. The reason that NRA is launching all these lawsuits right now is to drain the antis of cash that they could use in the general election on behalf of OBAMANATION.
    From the Opinion page of today's Wall Street Journal:

    "...Two important practical issues remain. First, will this ruling also apply to states and municipalities? That will depend on whether the Supreme Court decides to "incorporate" the right to keep and bear arms into the 14th Amendment. But in the middle of his opinion Justice Scalia acknowledges that the 39th Congress that enacted the 14th Amendment did so, in part, to protect the individual right to arms of freedmen and Southern Republicans so they might defend themselves from violence.

    My prediction: This ruling will eventually be extended to the states..."

  14. #28
    VIP Member
    Array falcon1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,482
    Quote Originally Posted by aquanomics View Post
    My prediction: This ruling will eventually be extended to the states..."
    ...IF the correct line-up of justices is sitting on the court at the time the case is heard.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  15. #29
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    Nationwide reciprocity discussions and bills have been on the table for quite some time. I don't see the new SC ruling pushing the issues any, but I know for fact it won't hurt. As stated previously:
    Not sure on that but what today brought us was affirmation of what we already believed of our Constitution.

  16. #30
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    I don't know about reciprocity but how this will affect each state is going to depend in part on how aggressively those that care about this issue get involved in pushing the issue locally. If you're not a member of the NRA or some State group that supports 2nd amendment rights join one.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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. Emergency RFI: Carry, concealment and reciprocity laws of MS
    By Janq in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 11th, 2011, 12:31 AM
  2. North Carolina Reciprocity Concealed Handgun Laws
    By Hondov65 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2010, 02:08 AM
  3. USSC Gun Rights Ruling
    By Captain Crunch in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 25th, 2009, 06:13 PM
  4. Variations on a Theme: The Heller Case in the USSC
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 21st, 2007, 11:42 PM
  5. Anyone know the Status of Nevada "new" Reciprocity Laws?
    By Timmy Jimmy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 7th, 2007, 05:15 PM