Fed up with reciprocity patchwork? Support this bill!

This is a discussion on Fed up with reciprocity patchwork? Support this bill! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; mlr1m, Some time ago last year in a thread I had posted state based links to as much for a handful of states amongst the ...

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 133

Thread: Fed up with reciprocity patchwork? Support this bill!

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    mlr1m,

    Some time ago last year in a thread I had posted state based links to as much for a handful of states amongst the east as an example of interstate compacts with specific focus toward this subject. It was a thread about basically the exact same commentary.

    Each state typically has the specifics of their interstate firearm permit and permissions posted amongst their state police or state government website as a document and it goes into detail listing what states they have relationships with and to what degree that relationship extends as related to the subject of firearm permits and possession. It is as I've seen generally referred to as a "compact". Same as what states use toward recognition of motor vehicle operation permits and licensing.

    I've yet to find a state that did not detail as much and have specific conventions as related to resident and non-resident, including that of FL where the info can be found under the Dept. of Agriculture (Dir. Charles Bronson).
    Folk would be well advised to do the long leg work and know the full detail of what, how, and to what degree states they might travel amongst may recognize if not support their Federal 2A rights and state level permissions.

    $0.02 Street

    - Janq
    Last edited by Janq; June 10th, 2009 at 05:37 PM.
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,713
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The fact of the matter is all the CCW reciprocity between states is unconstitutional.

    Artcle 1 Section 10:

    No state shall, without the consent of Congress,... enter into any agreement or compact with another state

    Of course, many of the people here are unconcerned with the Constitution if it is contrary to their perceived notions. Kind of like liberals/libertarians.
    Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

    No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

    No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.


    I don't think that the agreements with states to reciprocate on their concealed carry license falls under the wording of the above section.

    If you care to look over the letters for instance in the case of Texas, it is a one way street. That is why it is possible for Texas to allow someone from Nebraska to carry in the state of Texas, but it is not allowed for someone from Texas to carry into Nebraska. Here are all the letter for Texas. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...eciprocity.htm

    The wording you are referring to in Section 10 would be quite different than what actually takes place in the case of reciprocation between states. For the Gov. of Texas to allow someone who meets certain criteria from another state to carry a handgun in the state of Texas without requiring anything from the other state in return goes beyond the scope of Section 10. Agreements and compacts require dual participation, not single participation.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  4. #33
    Member Array langenc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montmorency Co, MI
    Posts
    82
    When(prior to) passing thru those states send a message to some local Chamber of Commerces and tell them why you dont stop. I just told Illinois..

  5. #34
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    The way I read the proposed bill - it isn't a national CCW bill and doesn't involve the Fed in how you CCW. It also doesn't appear from the quoted section in the OP that it would allow you to CCW in a state that doesn't have CCW. It says that if you have a permit in your state, then I read it to say you can carry in another state who has CCW as long as you abide by their laws.

    Same as a drivers license folks.

    Different states have different requirements for issuance and renewal of drivers licenses but you are legal in any state provided you abide by their speed limits and don't have a tail light out. Same difference.

    Personally - I think this is a good comprimise between states rights and the Fed.
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  6. #35
    Senior Member Array jualdeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Waponi Woo
    Posts
    1,045
    I don't want the feds to have ANY power over the issuing of CHLs.
    Bend the knees, smooth is fast, watch the front sight.

  7. #36
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post

    I don't think that the agreements with states to reciprocate on their concealed carry license falls under the wording of the above section.
    I think it is very clear, just as the rest of the Constitution.

    No state shall, without the consent of Congress,... enter into any agreement or compact with another state.

    How is the word ANY ambiguous at all?

    The wording you are referring to in Section 10 would be quite different than what actually takes place in the case of reciprocation between states. For the Gov. of Texas to allow someone who meets certain criteria from another state to carry a handgun in the state of Texas without requiring anything from the other state in return goes beyond the scope of Section 10. Agreements and compacts require dual participation, not single participation.
    The word repricocity itself implies an agreement. The spin and skating around that fact is disingenuous at best.

    Perhaps the 1840 Court opinion will shed some light on the issue. This case had to do with a Canadian, who was being extradited by a state, but the argument is exactly the same as provided for this issue.

    Holmes v. Jennison, opinion provided by Chief Justice Taney.

    1. According to the express words of the Constitution, it is one of the powers that the states are forbidden to exercise without the consent of Congress.

    2. It is incompatible and inconsistent with the powers conferred on the federal government.

    The first clause of the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution, among other limitations of state power, declares that "no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;" the second clause of the same section, among other things, declares that no state without the consent of Congress, shall "enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power."

    We have extracted only those parts of the section that are material to the present inquiry. The section consists of but two paragraphs, and is employed altogether in restrictions upon the powers of the states. In the first paragraph, the limitations are absolute and unconditional; in the second, the forbidden powers may be exercised with the consent of Congress, and it is in the second paragraph that the restrictions are found which apply to the case now before us.


    In expounding the Constitution of the United States, must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies with peculiar force to the two clauses of the tenth section of the first article, of which we are now speaking, because the whole of this short section is directed to the same subject -- that is to say it is employed altogether in enumerating the rights surrendered by the states; and this is done with so much clearness and brevity that we cannot for a moment believe that a single superfluous word was used, or words which meant merely the same thing. When, therefore, the second clause declares that no state shall enter into "any agreement or compact" with a foreign power without the assent of Congress, the words "agreement" and "compact" cannot be construed as synonymous with one another; and still less can either of them be held to mean the same thing with the word "treaty" in the preceding clause, into which the states are positively and unconditionally forbidden to enter, and which even the consent of Congress could not authorize.


    But the question does not rest upon the prohibition to enter into a treaty. In the very next clause of the Constitution, the states are forbidden to enter into any "agreement" or "compact" with a foreign nation, and as these words could not have been idly or superfluously
    used by the framers of the Constitution, they cannot be construed to mean the same thing with the word "treaty." They evidently mean something more, and were designed to make the prohibition more comprehensive.


    ...

    After reading these extracts, we can be at no loss to comprehend the intention of the framers of the Constitution in using all these words, "treaty," "compact," "agreement." The word "agreement," does not necessarily import any direct and express stipulation; nor is it necessary that it should be in writing. If there is a verbal understanding to which both parties have assented and upon which both are acting, it is an "agreement." And the use of all of these terms, "treaty," "agreement," "compact," show that it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution to use the broadest and most comprehensive terms, and that they anxiously desired to cut off all connection or communication between a state and a foreign power, and we shall fail to execute that evident intention unless we give to the word "agreement" its most extended signification, and so apply it as to prohibit every agreement, written or verbal, formal or informal, positive or implied, by the mutual understanding of the parties.

  8. #37
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by jualdeaux View Post
    I don't want the feds to have ANY power over the issuing of CHLs.
    I don't see, from the quoted part of the bill in the OP, that the bill has ANY thing to do with the Fed having ANY power over issuing CCW/CHL/CWP's. Only telling states they have to apply the same law to residents of other states that they do their own.
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    SD quoting our constitution wrote;"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state,"

    Somehow I think you are taking a possibly very literal view of that passage.

    While I can understand what you are driving at and why, the fact is there are all manner of such compacts in existence and I rather doubt that Congress had any part in authorizing many of them.

    E.g., agreements between NY and NJ regarding the operation of the Port Authority; agreements between several mid-west Great Lakes area states with each other and with Canada on water use.

    Compacts on sharing driver's license info and traffic violation conviction records being one example. We have already talked about reciprocity agreements.

    I'd not be surprised, although I don't know with certainty, that in some border areas such as Kansas City there are plenty of police and fire assistance agreements in place. There have to be bi-lateral maintenance agreements for every bridge over the Mississippi River that wasn't built by the Federal Govt.

    I've a hunch, given how inefficient Congress usually is, that many of these agreements have been done on many different issues through the years, and somehow been blessed by the courts. Sometimes the words don't mean what they look like they mean. And with good reason.

    Is it possible that Congress at some point essentially sidestepped this provision by legislating broad authority (consent) to the states? That would be a practical solution, consistent with the wording of the constitution, and perhaps just obscure enough that generally it would be known only to the various state's attorneys general and secretary of each state? I'm just throwing out some hypotheses, I don't have an answer to that apparent problem you posed, but clearly these "agreements" and "compacts" happen, are numerous, and somehow must be legal/ constitutional.

    Moreover, a bazillion local issues could not be resolved if they all needed congressional approval. E.g., There are fire departments on the NY - Canadian border. Some sort of agreement must have been reached for helping each other, no?

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,007
    IMO: It's a states rights issue and and we do not need the federal government making CCW law for the entire country: What a bag of worms that could morph into.

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    To quote the entirety of Article 1 Section 10 it then becomes clear that as applied here to this specific subject, that A1:S10 is not only not applicable but is as has been partially quoted prior being taken out of highly relevant context as to it's intent and meaning as written.

    United States Constitution
    Article 1

    Section 10.
    ...
    No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

    Source - LII: Constitution
    The quote as taken in part amongst the whole of the paragraph is not to be viewed as; 'No state shall, without the consent of Congress,... enter into any agreement or compact with another state' as proposed by SD.
    The information left out of the whole of the statement is key to the complete meaning and context as well as applicability of the words as provided in paraphrase.

    In actuality that section in it's entirety is relevant and specific, rather than general, in regard to a state taking measures or making acts of defense as related to times of peace...unless; "actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay".

    As noted by Hopyard interstate compacts and agreements of all sort are a norm at all levels of state governance and have been without Constitutional infringement for a very long time.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    I don't see, from the quoted part of the bill in the OP, that the bill has ANY thing to do with the Fed having ANY power over issuing CCW/CHL/CWP's. Only telling states they have to apply the same law to residents of other states that they do their own.
    Agreed.

    I think what is throwing some folks off is the statement in sentence one of; "...establish a national standard for the carrying of concealed firearms...".

    The 'national standard' as within context of the definition toward the proposed act which is covered in detail in the second and follow on sentence details that the "standard" would be specific toward handling on a "national" scale view of state issue and state based conditions licensing/permitting as is related to travel from state to state toward; "...a person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a concealed firearm in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state...".

    This is _exactly_ how motor vehicle operator licenses/permits and state issue licensing and permissions work today and have worked for decades.

    There is no Federalization of carry nor Federal oversight of licensing proposed here. Nor is this a states rights issues as the act states in so many words that all rights afforded by the states collectively would endure as related to licensing/permitting and general laws regulating possession.

    Again the exact same occurs with motor vehicle operator licenses/permits.

    If right turn on red, mandatory seatbelt use, mandatory helmet on a motorcycle operator, and driving 65 MPH on motorways is lawful in your own state of residence and you travel to a second state where as much is not lawful then you do not have to secure a second drivers license and go through that states own processing so as to be able to operate the same motor vehicle in that second state, although you do have to make yourself aware of and obey any and all applicable motor vehicle operation and safety laws amongst the second sate without any regard to the laws and regulations of your home state of license/permit issue.

    I see zero problem with this proposed act and would support it as it just simply makes complete sense and is frankly long over due.

    Key is to read these things in their full and complete entirety rather than parsed, as akin to how the media has trained up current modern people to read and expect their information to be provided to them...and by that make and base positions for most every subject of discussion.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  13. #42
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    SD quoting our constitution wrote;"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state,"

    Somehow I think you are taking a possibly very literal view of that passage.
    That is the point, isn't it? You can't pick and choose what you think the Constitution means. Article 1, Section 10 is extraordinarily clear.

    While I can understand what you are driving at and why, the fact is there are all manner of such compacts in existence and I rather doubt that Congress had any part in authorizing many of them.

    E.g., agreements between NY and NJ regarding the operation of the Port Authority; agreements between several mid-west Great Lakes area states with each other and with Canada on water use.

    Compacts on sharing driver's license info and traffic violation conviction records being one example. We have already talked about reciprocity agreements.
    I have not researched you other examples, but iy is an act of Congress that allowed the interstate driver license compact in 1961. Back when the Constitution was apparently more respected than today.


    [QUoOTE]Is it possible that Congress at some point essentially sidestepped this provision by legislating broad authority (consent) to the states?[/QUOTE]

    Why not toss the entire Constitution? It is, after all, older than Cruikshank and Presser. The people of today are far better at implementing government, obviously.

    Moreover, a bazillion local issues could not be resolved if they all needed congressional approval. E.g., There are fire departments on the NY - Canadian border. Some sort of agreement must have been reached for helping each other, no?
    No, which is exactly what Holmes was all about. Yes, LOCAL ISSUES are resolved at the local level. Interstate issues and dealing with foreign nations are controlled by the Federal government.

    I find it sad that so many wish to twist the Constitution if it helps their political agenda.

  14. #43
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    To quote the entirety of Article 1 Section 10 it then becomes clear that as applied here to this specific subject, that A1:S10 is not only not applicable but is as has been partially quoted prior being taken out of highly relevant context as to it's intent and meaning as written.
    Quoting it in its entirety in no way changes the context. States cannot enter into any agreements with other states.

    The information left out of the whole of the statement is key to the complete meaning and context as well as applicability of the words as provided in paraphrase.
    Perhaps you can elabrate using Taney's explantion as a starting point.

    In actuality that section in it's entirety is relevant and specific, rather than general, in regard to a state taking measures or making acts of defense as related to times of peace...unless; "actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay".
    That is clearly wrong as the Holmes case concerned extradition of a Canadian citizem, accused of murder, from Vermont. The section has nothing to do with wartime and defense. And it is indeed general, as Taney explains.

    As noted by Hopyard interstate compacts and agreements of all sort are a norm at all levels of state governance and have been without Constitutional infringement for a very long time.
    The interstate drivers license compact was approved by Congress, as the Constitution mandates.

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    SD,

    The facts you cited above, as to Hopyard, are not fully correct.

    See the following source for clarity...

    * FHWA > Highway History > President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Federal Role in Highway Safety >
    Chapter 4: The Federal Role in Highway Safety
    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/safety04.cfm

    In a nutshell this all dates back to the early '50s and the Eisenhower administration as related to then a strong Federal level concern as in regard to traffic safety which was then acknowledged and still is a states right item.

    'Federal Intervention'
    "He [L. S. Harris, Executive Director of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)]referred to the 1958 Beamer Resolution as a good starting point. Each State, he felt, needed to enact a "Little Beamer Resolution" giving its designated officials the authority to enter into compacts with other States. Such compacts, he pointed out, were common in many areas of government, including allocation of water from the Colorado and Columbia Rivers and forest fire prevention."

    The Beamer Resolution did not enable states to enter into compacts amongst themselves. It provided Federal incentives by way of highway maintenance funding and equal threat of actually attempting to usurp states rights toward those states that were safety laggards and/or refused to work together as a coalition toward them self amongst themselves developing standards toward various and multiple measures of highway safety.
    It was a classic case of carrot and stick.

    Additional albeit short and brief reading on the subject can be found here though you'll have to ignore some of the typos and spelling errors such as "Beemer";

    * Driver License Compact
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact

    * Driver License Agreement
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Agreement

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,411
    Open the door for the mouse (Feds giving you something you want) , in order to get the horse thru the backdoor later. That's the point. It opens the door for Fedl Govt to get involved in CC laws, requirements, etc... and do you really believe they will stop there ?? I don't.

    It's the old bait and switch tactic often used. We pass a law giving you something you want, in order to restrict it and pass other amendments they want... later.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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. Reciprocity Bill Weaseling
    By randytulsa2 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 04:19 PM
  2. CCW Reciprocity Amendment - Please support(merged)
    By Chevy-SS in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: May 24th, 2008, 09:50 AM
  3. What ever happened to Nevada Reciprocity Bill
    By Timmy Jimmy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 21st, 2007, 10:49 PM
  4. Mental Health Disclosure Bill & NRA support ?
    By Shizzlemah in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 25th, 2007, 07:34 PM
  5. Support National Reciprocity Bill H.R. 4547
    By ArmyCop in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 4th, 2006, 07:10 AM

Search tags for this page

concealed weapons resoprocity
,
expert authors in our free article directory ca concealed weapon permit
,

expert authors in our free article directory concealed weapon permit laws

,
expert authors in our free article directory georgia drivers license renewals
,
expert authors in our free article directory national rifle association
,
expert authors in our free article directory seat belt law
,

expert authors in our free article directory sig arms firearms

,
expert authors in our free article directory washington conceled weapons permit
,
federal concealed carry reciprocity bill s 845
,

in the section on defensive driving, the author warns: never underestimate the power of people in groups

,
ltc reciprocity law fed
,
national ltc reciprocity legislation
,
reciprocity support bills
,
two separate national reciprocity bills
,

what is the hr bill number that makes ccw same as driver licsence?

Click on a term to search for related topics.