National Recoprocity Act of 2017 - Page 3

National Recoprocity Act of 2017

This is a discussion on National Recoprocity Act of 2017 within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by ghost tracker Hey jrobin, we're on YOUR side! You're preachin' to...the choir. For the most part GT, I'll agree. But there are ...

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 115
Like Tree170Likes

Thread: National Recoprocity Act of 2017

  1. #31
    Member Array jrobin3360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Kentucky, along the O-HI-O
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    Hey jrobin, we're on YOUR side! You're preachin' to...the choir.
    For the most part GT, I'll agree.

    But there are "supposed" 2A supporters & gun owners that believe that a few infringements are OK or that RKBA is more privilege than right.

    Garbage like that frosts my cookies & sometimes I feel the need to rant.
    US Army Engineers, 1976-1980
    Member/supporter: NRA, SAF, GOA.
    1911 owner/aficionado: Norinco 1911A1, Rock Island CS GI, Springfield Loaded, other to be named later.

  2. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    22,148
    Quote Originally Posted by jrobin3360 View Post
    For the most part GT, I'll agree.

    But there are "supposed" 2A supporters & gun owners that believe that a few infringements are OK or that RKBA is more privilege than right.

    Garbage like that frosts my cookies & sometimes I feel the need to rant.
    I didn't say those infringements are OK, merely that they are, and as far as I can surmise, have been for a very long time.
    "Ideals are peaceful. History is violent."

    Don Collier, Fury

  3. #33
    Member Array jrobin3360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Kentucky, along the O-HI-O
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    I didn't say those infringements are OK, merely that they are, and as far as I can surmise, have been for a very long time.
    You're right, you never said these infringements are OK. And my rant wasn't necessarily directed at you, though you equating rights as a privilege is out of place.
    I've read & heard too many people who are willing to give up our liberties & freedoms because it either makes them safe (total B.S.) or doesn't affect them (maybe not now but it will in the future).

    And yes, 2A infringements have been around since the first town marshal/county sheriff/town council posted signs that no guns allowed in town limits. It was wrong then just as it's wrong now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    The Supreme Court has had well over two hundred years to find that the Second Amendment means what it says, but has yet to do so. What is suddenly going to change that now?
    To be realistic, I don't expect things to change much in my lifetime. But maybe there's hope things can change (for the better of 2A) for my kids & grandkids.

    But it has to start with us here today.

    National Reciprocity, IMHO, is an acknowledgement that 2A rights have been infringed on far too long but will not make the essential change that needs to be made.

    We can only hope that President Trump will appoint (and the senate confirms) constitutionalist justices who will adhere to the constitution as it is written.

    Time will tell.
    US Army Engineers, 1976-1980
    Member/supporter: NRA, SAF, GOA.
    1911 owner/aficionado: Norinco 1911A1, Rock Island CS GI, Springfield Loaded, other to be named later.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Senior Member Array 19Kvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by searcher 45 View Post
    All a restrictive state has to do is pass more restrictive laws, and make it a pain just to carry in the state.

    Example of what I mean might be: 1. only unloaded guns can be carried, 2. only a certain caliber can be carried say 32acp, 3. must have 1,000,000,000$ insurance to carry in our state, etc etc etc.

    Some how this must be addressed or the dem-RATS will chew away at the rights of everyone.

    Constitutional Carry nation wide might fix this, but it is still a uphill battle.
    Sure they could do this but under the 14A's Equal Protection clause, those laws would apply to everyone in the state (excepting government employees in official capacity) including the private security of their donors. They would also have to worry about crossing a line where the courts get fed up and start overturning all their gun laws- SCOTUS decisions aren't always just about the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
    It also says that the out-of-State carrier, must abide by the laws of the visiting State.

    Forcing States like CA, MD, IL to Honor other State permits will cause them to 1) file suit in Federal Court, 2) pass new restrictive legislation on both the visitor and the resident. 3) The GFSZA.

    1) Suing the federal Government will fast track the suit to the Supreme Court. With a Trump SC, we will have a 5-4 Majority. That is very poor odds and there is less than no guarantee that they will rule this law Constitutional.
    If the SC rules it Unconstitutional then this issue will be dead forever.

    2) These Democrat run States will have no problems passing more restrictive laws to combat Nation Reciprocity.

    3) If the Federal Government is going to pass Legislation forcing States to Honor other State Permits, then they better clean their own house first. As of right now it is a felony under the GFSZA to carry on public land within 1000 feet of a school without a State Issued permit. Yet, they are demanding Nation Reciprocity while at the same time making it Illegal within 1000 feet of a school. Do you know how impossible it can be to stay 1000 feet away from a school when driving in a large city? Damn near impossible. ...and you can bet your sweet ass that States like CA, NJ, NY, MD, will pass, if not already on the books, a GFSZA for non-permit holders of their own.
    1) It is completely within Congress' power to pass laws to harmonize state acts between the states...
    Quote Originally Posted by Artice 4, Section 1
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
    2) Again, every time the anti's pass gun laws they risk angering the courts which will cost them good will and deference. I believe that they are incapable of not taking their agenda too far over the long run and while I don't like that places like CA are infringing on gun rights already, every time they restrict gun rights more they come closer to the day that the courts will have to decide whether the COTUS means something or not. A recent close call for the anti's came in the Peruta decision where banning OC in CA nearly overturned the "May Issue" provisions of their CCW laws (and it still may).

    3) The GFSZA needs to be cleaned up regardless of National Reciprocity. However, a new statute that seeks to equate all CCWs should invalidate the insane issuing state provisions of the GFSZA as the intent is to give "Full Faith and Credit" to CCW permits issued in various states. It would certainly give an argument to Pro-Gun rights legal cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrobin3360 View Post
    FROM THE ARTICLE:



    So, if I carry to NY or CA with my G21 or FNS-9, I have to carry extra 10rd mags, stop at the state line, load my ammo into the mags.

    In CA, If I'm carrying a pistol that's not on the CADoJ "approved" roster, I'm in violation of CA law.

    This bill is a step in the right direction.....is it really?......but the only way to have REAL 2A reciprocity is for the SCOTUS to declare all gun laws nationwide to be unconstitutional.

    But I believe that, somehow, 10A will stand in the way of that......thought 10A has no more power than any other amendment. THEY ARE EQUAL!!!
    You would have to leave your "High Capcity" mags out of those states (CA, NY, etc) in addition to leaving your hollow point rounds out of NJ until such time as those laws change or are invalidated.

    The CA DOJ roster is for new sales within the states not for mere possession. So for just visiting the state, the roster is irrelevant. Since fewer and fewer existing (and registered) pistols in the state are on the roster trying to change the "approved for sale" roster to a permitted roster would be nigh impossible (doesn't mean they won't try).

    It is perfectly legal for States to regulate how one bears arms- that common law doctrine dates back centuries and no amount of wishful thinking will make the 2A change that. Only a new amendment (not likely) or statute(s) will force recalcitrant states and localities to allow CC. This bill would do that. Additionally, the incorporation of the 2A under the 14A invalidates any 10A roadblocks as a matter of course.
    rpflash100 likes this.

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array TeflonDon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,179
    How many years in a row has a similar National Reciprocity bill been introduced? Anyone know?
    Pijo73 likes this.

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array 19Kvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,181
    The earliest one I've seen was 2008 and every new congress since then has introduced such a bill (always blocked).
    Pijo73 and TeflonDon like this.

  8. #37
    Member Array Mathemagician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by xXxHeavy View Post
    ...Leaving NJ residents at risk, as you will have tons of people that travel come to our state armed, but our own residents will not be...
    When you say this, you are saying that citizens who have undergone the requisite background check, training, etc. as required to get licensed and are legally carrying concealed are a threat to your safety. I really wish you would consider a different approach in the future.

  9. #38
    Member Array bpurdy0's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    343
    The article brings up an interesting point of a resident of a may issue state applying for an out of state permit in a shall issue state. It seems like a good idea in theory except that a national reciprocity bill would probably put an end to non-resident permits, as they would no longer be needed. Also, I would expect the language of the pill to prohibit such a practice. People have been using the argument "your driver's license is valid in other states, your carry permit should be too". I agree with that statement, but the law prohibits me (a CT resident) from getting a license in Nevada or any other state. Unfortunately, I don't see carry permits being treated differently.

  10. #39
    Distinguished Member Array CalCarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Kamalifornia
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by bpurdy0 View Post
    The article brings up an interesting point of a resident of a may issue state applying for an out of state permit in a shall issue state. It seems like a good idea in theory except that a national reciprocity bill would probably put an end to non-resident permits, as they would no longer be needed. Also, I would expect the language of the pill to prohibit such a practice. People have been using the argument "your driver's license is valid in other states, your carry permit should be too". I agree with that statement, but the law prohibits me (a CT resident) from getting a license in Nevada or any other state. Unfortunately, I don't see carry permits being treated differently.
    I think there should be a universal national permit it's called a Birth Certificate! That would simplify things, and of course you could get disqualified if you commit and are convicted of a felony.
    sdprof and forester58 like this.

  11. #40
    Member Array xXxHeavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathemagician View Post
    When you say this, you are saying that citizens who have undergone the requisite background check, training, etc. as required to get licensed and are legally carrying concealed are a threat to your safety. I really wish you would consider a different approach in the future.
    Again, read the disclaimer, I didn't write those correspondence.....my name isn't John.

    Thanks CalCarry........

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array searcher 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    4,457
    In Texas you have 90 days to get your drivers license change from out of state to Texas once you become a residence.

    LEO told me that if you have a Texas drivers license you should also have a Texas CHL, not some out of state CHL.

    He thought that Texas recognizing out of state CHLs was so non residents could carry on their out of state carry license while VISITING in other state.

    The easiest way to solve this IMHO is to just go nation wide Constitutional Carry and forget the state TAX STAMP which grants a citizen the states permission to exercise their RIGHTS.

    Either RIGHTS OR RIGHTS OR THEY ARE NOT RIGHTS AT ALL!!!!!!!

    That said, I have a TAX STAMP CHL because I do not want to be looking through the bars at the guards.
    NOT LIVING IN FEAR, JUST READY!!!
    I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness,
    nor the arrow for its swiftness,
    nor the warrior for his glory.
    I love only that which they defend.
    -J.R.R. Tolkien

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array steve4102's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by 19Kvet View Post



    1) It is completely within Congress' power to pass laws to harmonize state acts between the states...

    .
    Originally Posted by
    Artice 4, Section 1
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
    A Carry permit or license is not a "Public Act".

    Public Act

    (Law) an act or statute affecting matters of public concern. Of such statutes the courts take judicial notice.
    Public act - definition of public act by The Free Dictionary

    OR

    An act of legislation affecting the public as a whole.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de.../us/public_act

    "Full Faith and Credit" in general has not been applied with regard to activities subject to a license in a State. If you are licensed to practice medicine or do business as a contractor in one State, you in general can not expect to be able to lawfully practice medicine or do business as a contractor under that license in another State.

    Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause

    ..In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935)...

    So no, Full Faith and Credit does not apply to "individuals" that have a Carry License as it is not a "Public Act" as defined by law.

  14. #43
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    12,052
    I'm on the fence relative national reciprocity/carry. It will depend on how the bill is written and the safeguards it affords those carrying in states that don't agree with the bill/law if passed.
    Mike1956 and Holmes375 like this.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    https://www.youtube.com/user/azqkr

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  15. #44
    VIP Member
    Array Stoveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    Posts
    4,965
    Quote Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
    It also says that the out-of-State carrier, must abide by the laws of the visiting State.

    Forcing States like CA, MD, IL to Honor other State permits will cause them to 1) file suit in Federal Court, 2) pass new restrictive legislation on both the visitor and the resident. 3) The GFSZA.

    1) Suing the federal Government will fast track the suit to the Supreme Court. With a Trump SC, we will have a 5-4 Majority. That is very poor odds and there is less than no guarantee that they will rule this law Constitutional.
    If the SC rules it Unconstitutional then this issue will be dead forever.

    2) These Democrat run States will have no problems passing more restrictive laws to combat Nation Reciprocity.

    3) If the Federal Government is going to pass Legislation forcing States to Honor other State Permits, then they better clean their own house first. As of right now it is a felony under the GFSZA to carry on public land within 1000 feet of a school without a State Issued permit. Yet, they are demanding Nation Reciprocity while at the same time making it Illegal within 1000 feet of a school. Do you know how impossible it can be to stay 1000 feet away from a school when driving in a large city? Damn near impossible. ...and you can bet your sweet ass that States like CA, NJ, NY, MD, will pass, if not already on the books, a GFSZA for non-permit holders of their own.

    Have you read the bill?

    Not only does it prohibit the states (presumably CA, MD, NJ, et al) from enacting GFZ other than government owned buildings, it limits the GFSZ to only the building and it's grounds, not the buffer zone, and guts any magazine and ammo restrictions. NY couldn't make NYC a GFZ in it's entirety, for example.
    Mike1956 and CalCarry like this.
    "And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  16. #45
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    22,148
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    I'm on the fence relative national reciprocity/carry. It will depend on how the bill is written and the safeguards it affords those carrying in states that don't agree with the bill/law if passed.
    My greatest concern for the bill is what it will look like once the committees, discussions, add-ons, changes, and deletions have all taken place.
    AzQkr and Sticks like this.
    "Ideals are peaceful. History is violent."

    Don Collier, Fury

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •