National Constitutional Carry...

[Hopyard]

make our CC permits reconized just like our state issued drivers lic's. it really is that simple

This has been discussed here many times. As I understand it, there is no law or constitutional principle which makes your DL good across all states; rather there are interstate agreement and compacts of one sort or another. Where the DL is involved, it is apparently in all state's interests to have made sure that their was a coherent system for interstate recognition. For CHL, there are states which seem determined to not only not have their own citizens licensed, they won't recognize a license from other states. Hence, no interstate compact.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[livewire]

Clearly this is not the present state of affairs. Clearly a license issued by one state does not have to be honored by other states and this has been tested right up through the SC. In a notable example, sorry I don't have the citation, a NY police officer was convicted of felony possession for carrying in NJ. The felony was upheld by The Supremes. I would imagine the clause you think provides for nationwide recognition entered into the debate before the court.

We all mislead ourselves about the law when we think that the plain letter of the constitution or any other law is all there is to it.

You're right. . . I'm posting my opinion of what SHOULD be, not what is.

This has been discussed here many times. As I understand it, there is no law or constitutional principle which makes your DL good across all states; rather there are interstate agreement and compacts of one sort or another. Where the DL is involved, it is apparently in all state's interests to have made sure that their was a coherent system for interstate recognition. For CHL, there are states which seem determined to not only not have their own citizens licensed, they won't recognize a license from other states. Hence, no interstate compact.

I hear that a lot, but is that really the case? Does somebody know or have reference to the reason why a DL is recognized nationally? It always seems like people are making assumptions from the way they word the response.

[TN_Mike]

As I have stated in the past, we do not want the Federal Government getting involved in any way with regulating carry, either with a national permit system or with constitutional carry. What the Federal Government regulates, the Federal government will eventually outlaw. Period.

Much better to let the states set up their own laws and have reciprocal agreements. Keep the Federal government out of it entirely.

[livewire]

As I have stated in the past, we do not want the Federal Government getting involved in any way with regulating carry, either with a national permit system or with constitutional carry. What the Federal Government regulates, the Federal government will eventually outlaw. Period.

Much better to let the states set up their own laws and have reciprocal agreements. Keep the Federal government out of it entirely.

Ya know, I live in Washington, and I think we have one of the best carry laws in the nation. That being said, it's kind of amazing to me how many of you trust your state so much more than the fed government. I agree that we shouldn't trust the Feds, but why is your state so much more trustworthy?

[Toorop]

make our CC permits reconized just like our state issued drivers lic's. it really is that simple

This is essentially having the feds forcing their will upon the states.

Oh and travel light brother.

[mlr1m]

Ya know, I live in Washington, and I think we have one of the best carry laws in the nation. That being said, it's kind of amazing to me how many of you trust your state so much more than the fed government. I agree that we shouldn't trust the Feds, but why is your state so much more trustworthy?

The more local a government is the easier it is to change. The state government of Oklahoma is closer to the people it represents and does not need to take into account the views of the people in the State of New Jersey.

Michael

[Hopyard]

I hear that a lot, but is that really the case? Does somebody know or have reference to the reason why a DL is recognized nationally? It always seems like people are making assumptions from the way they word the response.

I responded by repeating something I have seen elsewhere on this forum. I just tried to verify it, and although I can find numerous references to various compacts and agreements, they all seem to be related to mutual reporting of things like DUI. I have not been able to find what you are seeking; though it certainly must exist in some form.

The furthest back I found anything was a 1961 interstate compact, but that also dealt with DUI reporting.

Yours is an interesting question and I hope someone can provide an authoritative answer; with some citations, as my explanation is clearly just based on repetition of stuff others have posted elsewhere on this board.

[livewire]

I responded by repeating something I have seen elsewhere on this forum. I just tried to verify it, and although I can find numerous references to various compacts and agreements, they all seem to be related to mutual reporting of things like DUI. I have not been able to find what you are seeking; though it certainly must exist in some form.

The furthest back I found anything was a 1961 interstate compact, but that also dealt with DUI reporting.

Yours is an interesting question and I hope someone can provide an authoritative answer; with some citations, as my explanation is clearly just based on repetition of stuff others have posted elsewhere on this board.

It may be one of those things that doesn't actually have any legal reason for it, it's just always 'been' that way. Realistically, there is no reason there HAS to be any kind of official agreement to do something that all states have always done. I'm just a bit curious, it may have absolutely no bearing on CCW reciprocity at all, but it gets mentioned every time this debate comes up.

[Hopyard]

It may be one of those things that doesn't actually have any legal reason for it, it's just always 'been' that way.

I would not be at all surprised. One would I suppose need to look at DL laws starting in the early 20th century to see how this all evolved. My hunch, it was all settled by the mid 1920s. I base this on the fact that my grandmother drove from NYC to Cleveland,OH back then, let's say, 1925, which would have been impossible if the states weren't by then recognizing each other's DLs.

[livewire]

I would not be at all surprised. One would I suppose need to look at DL laws starting in the early 20th century to see how this all evolved. My hunch, it was all settled by the mid 1920s. I base this on the fact that my grandmother drove from NYC to Cleveland,OH back then, let's say, 1925, which would have been impossible if the states weren't by then recognizing each other's DLs.

In 1925, she could have carried her gun with her and there wouldn't have been an issue. . .

[Hopyard]

In 1925, she could have carried her gun with her and there wouldn't have been an issue. . .

My grandmother "didn't need no gun!!!" One time she threw a man off a balcony, another time she watched a thief coming to climb through her window. She stood to the side and slammed it down on his hands.

Anyway, she would not have been able to carry back then. NYC has, since 1911, The Sullivan law, which is one of the oldest gun control laws on the books.

Even Texas had gun controls in place that far back, dating from the 19th century.

These type of laws are nothing new really. They've been around a very very long time. They have been controversial a very long time, and will continue to be for eternity unless 2A is amended to much more clear language.

[ajgranda]

The only way you will ever see national carry for citizens is if very stringent requirements are attached. Something along the lines of carry permit requirements for states such as CA, NY, MA, HI. Then they would require yearly qualifications. This is something we retired LEO and even current LEO have to do now for national carry.

[livewire]

The only way you will ever see national carry for citizens is if very stringent requirements are attached. Something along the lines of carry permit requirements for states such as CA, NY, MA, HI. Then they would require yearly qualifications. This is something we retired LEO and even current LEO have to do now for national carry.

I don't want a carry 'policy' by the feds. . . I want them to acknowledge the ones currently provided for in the US Constitution. Either by observing the full intent of the 2nd Amendment, or by properly observing Article 4, Section 1 in observation of issued CCW permits.

Of course, the majority of Conservatives (of which I am) won't push the latter as it would probably force all states to observe gay marriages, which is a non-starter for a lot of the Conservatives (not me).

Again, this is something for the Courts to decide, but it's probably not going to happen with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, and no lower court will be able to end the debate without appeal.

[TN_Mike]

Ya know, I live in Washington, and I think we have one of the best carry laws in the nation. That being said, it's kind of amazing to me how many of you trust your state so much more than the fed government. I agree that we shouldn't trust the Feds, but why is your state so much more trustworthy?

I can go and see my state Representative or Senator. I can get in and actually talk face to face with them. Can't say the same about my Fed. Reps and Senators. Plus, my state has already proven to me that they are on my side. The laws in my state (currently Indiana) are very gun friendly. (The laws in my home state of Tennessee are even better.) Plus, both states (IN and TN) have stood up to the Federal Government over issues that effect the residents of the state. (TN has passed a resolution that while largely symbolic, seeks to cut the Federal Government out of any regulation on firearms manufactured within the borders of TN as long as the gun stays within the borders of TN)

In short, in most cases (IL, CA, MD and a few others not withstanding) the state governments dislike or distrust the federal government almost as much as I do.

[livewire]

I can go and see my state Representative or Senator. I can get in and actually talk face to face with them. Can't say the same about my Fed. Reps and Senators. Plus, my state has already proven to me that they are on my side. The laws in my state (currently Indiana) are very gun friendly. (The laws in my home state of Tennessee are even better.) Plus, both states (IN and TN) have stood up to the Federal Government over issues that effect the residents of the state. (TN has passed a resolution that while largely symbolic, seeks to cut the Federal Government out of any regulation on firearms manufactured within the borders of TN as long as the gun stays within the borders of TN)

In short, in most cases (IL, CA, MD and a few others not withstanding) the state governments dislike or distrust the federal government almost as much as I do.

The same people voted for your state government as voted for your federal representitaves and senators. . . not saying that your state government isn't more 'for' you, but I'd be careful making assumptions.

Like I said earlier, someone in the Federal government needs to start an audit of the Federal statutes, to verify their constitutionality, and to get rid of the ones that aren't relevant anymore, and the ones that conflict with each other, or are redundant.

I'll not hold my breath for that one, lol.