National Reciprocity again

[Ben]

IMO, the odds of getting a clean bill are pretty slim. 

Agree. Even if we got 50 state constitutional or permitless (two different things) carry, there would still be issues. In my state, there are still certain places off limits to carry that are different than other states who also have constitutional carry. State and local govt buildings for instance. There are some gov buildings I can carry in and others where I can't. In other states there are different gov buildings with different rules.

Or, an example more people can run into: Carry in places that serve alcohol. I can walk into any bar here, I just can't get drunk. In other constitutional carry states, it's illegal to do so, or you have to stay in the "food section" of a restaurant/bar. And for actually drinking, I can't be intoxicated (whatever that means - we don't have a clear definition here), while in other CC states, you can't have a sip of alcohol.

So even if everyone is "constitutional carry" you still have to look up he rules in sates you travel to, and hope that what you read is current.

I'm thinking our best chances of big changes are NFA related. Suppressors, SBRs, etc. I'm guessing we're going to have to make some compromise on that, like selling the machine gun guys down the river (i.e., they stay in tax stamp status) to get the other stuff through.

[MechAg94]

We need someone to introduce a bill to reopen the machine gun registry.  I haven't heard that even talked about. 

[dogmush]

We need someone to introduce a bill to reopen the machine gun registry.  I haven't heard that even talked about.

If we can get that done I'll drop 4 or 5 tax stamps faster than my drill press can spin up.

[230RN]

I don't think you understand the objections some people have. Any national reciprocity law will have to be written in such a way that it cannot be turned against us. For example, a law that assures reciprocity, but now every state permit has to have 12 hours of training plus some kind of insurance policy for the people we'll supposedly harm. So blanket support for any old kind of national reciprocity is foolhardy.

Even if we get a clean bill that doesn't hurt us right away, it may become a precedent for the federal government to regulate state firearm laws.

I frankly cannot  understand why some people cannot grasp that. It's like coating offal with chocolate.  First bite is great.

IMO, the odds of getting a clean bill are pretty slim.  Too many people have their hands in the cookie jar that are not our friends (including Republicans).  Plus, I doubt a clean bill would get past the filibuster in the Senate.

I almost think it would be easier to get suppressors out of the NFA.  Given the slim R majority, anything they pass will have to get through some more liberal Republicans.  Republicans have never been the block vote that Democrats have been in Congress.  I would like to see the Republican leadership add various pro-gun bills to the larger bills passed, but I don't know if they are willing to do that.[/b] 

For one thing because that other party whose name I can't mention has no fear of controlling their candidates who do not toe the line with denial of so many campaign and ongoing support services.  Phone centers, yard signs procurement and installation, literature composition and production, "streetwalkers" who ring doorbells for you, busing senior citizens to the polls, people who staple literature together for you, post office bulk mail licensing...  You want to run a campaign without those services? No?  Then here's the pitch.  Now go sell it.

That's why because.

No National Reciprocity !

Terry, 230RN

REF (And once again, for the convenience of those who want to tie their own nooses, here's how):

https://youtu.be/rOvIYdrfBDI (2:51)

Edited to add missing sentence: "First bite is great."

[Live Life]

For those concerned about permitted carry reciprocity issues, Thomas Massie introduced H.R. 645 National Constitutional Carry Act - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1462752#msg1462752

[Calumus]

I read the actual 6 page bill, and if it passes as is, I’d be happy. Summery is that if you’re legal to carry in your home state, you’re legal to carry everywhere. Doesn’t matter if your home state is constitutional carry, or like NJ where is costs you $500 every two years for your permit. That section has teeth too. If a state incorrectly prosecutes you for legally carrying under the new law, they’re responsible for your legal fees. Also, if what you’re carrying is legal at home, it’s legal anywhere you go. If you’re incorrectly prosecuted for that, they pay your legal fees, and you can sue for damages. That last part was my biggest concern knowing how restrictive NJ is, and that every standard capacity mag somebody brought in would be a felony charge.

I think it’s actually a really good start. It would also open the doors to some equal protection act lawsuits down the road. How come people from most other states can carry 15 round magazines in NJ, when I, as a resident, am limited to 10?

Why do i have to fork over all kinds of cash to exercise a constitutional right when it’s free for over half of the country?

[Ben]

Having lived in a restricted state much longer than I have lived in a free state, I totally get how a lot of people think this is a good thing.

However, and I'm a dummy, so somebody needs to explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old, because I haven't found it anywhere in the bill in language I understand:

I can, this morning, grab my AR15, drive to Boise, and walk into the State Capitol while the senate is in session and me and my AR can have a seat to watch. No issue. Will I be able to drive to Sacramento and do that?

Also, back to my bar/restaurant question. Is there language that says I can carry in any bar in the US and drink Shirley Temples? Can I have a beer?

Also, what's a public space?

The first provision prohibits any state or political subdivision from imposing criminal or civil penalties on eligible individuals carrying firearms in public. The second provision invalidates any existing state or local laws, statutes, regulations, or local restrictions that criminalize, penalize, or otherwise dissuade the carrying of firearms in public.

Schools? Or 1000 feet from schools? Or didn't CA recently do that weirdo thing that "public space" became so convoluted that you don't know what's public and what's not? I need to see the language that addresses all that.

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer. I do see the value of things like me not being arrested for carrying a non-compliant pistol with a 17 round mag in CA, or driving through the state with a loaded AR in my vehicle. But my above questions are still very concerning to me.

[cordex]

Aren't those issues today as well, though?  Even if my permit is accepted somewhere, I still have to go check up on their laws and see where I'm allowed to carry and so forth.  It might not solve everything, but it puts us ahead of where we are today, doesn't it?

I do get the concern about the feds dipping their toes in gun carry regulation, especially for states that are already relatively free, and that they might screw it up.  I'll have to think about that some more because my initial thought is that failing to pass a well designed carry bill doesn't in any way prevent an unfriendly Congress from passing bad laws.

[Ben]

Aren't those issues today as well, though?  Even if my permit is accepted somewhere, I still have to go check up on their laws and see where I'm allowed to carry and so forth.  It might not solve everything, but it puts us ahead of where we are today, doesn't it?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Absolutely, I currently have to be aware of state laws when I cross the border - at least those I can find online. I currently worry about missing something. Do I need to worry if this bill is passed? And again, not to pick on CA, that last thing I remember reading about public spaces meant that the Walmart parking lot was off limits, for example. Will this bill eliminate states doing crap where something that 90% of us consider "public" is actually prohibited by state law?

I'm just looking for some language that will eliminate, or greatly reduce, "gotchya" stuff where somebody could get popped for carrying in a place 99% of us would consider "public".

[Live Life]

... Constitutional Carry

I read the actual 6 page bill, and ... I think it’s actually a really good start.

I think so too and bill really gets down to the core issue of being able to exercise right to self-defense under Second Amendment expanded by Supreme Court in Bruen ruling of RKBA outside of home using "modern" magazine fed semi-auto firearm clarified in Heller.

To me, core issue of national constitutional carry is not about state versus federal rather states violating Supreme Court Second Amendment case rulings such as Heller, Caetano, Bruen, Cargill and Soon VanDerStok which the founders framed as the highest court of the land to rule binding laws of the land.

How come people from most other states can carry 15 round magazines ... when I ... am limited to 10?

somebody needs to explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old, because I haven't found it anywhere in the bill in language I understand:

I can, this morning, grab my AR15, drive to Boise, and walk into the State Capitol while the senate is in session and me and my AR can have a seat to watch. No issue. Will I be able to drive to Sacramento and do that?

I do see the value of things like me not being arrested for carrying a non-compliant pistol with a 17 round mag in CA, or driving through the state with a loaded AR in my vehicle.

Valid points and questions.  This is my take.

When it comes to enforcement of Second Amendment, it should be the same as enforcement of First Amendment.   And that's where "We the People" elected representatives come in, to write laws and pass them to enforce rights of "We the People" as we have seen in many new/reintroduced 2A bills recently.

We have national constitutional free speech under the First Amendment that has expanded to "modern" forms of communication like email/texting.  So we are able to exercise free speech of email/text in all states using "modern" communication devices such as cellphones/smartphones/tablets/laptops, etc. and states do not impose any restriction on our First Amendment right as we travel through different states.

But we cannot exercise national constitutional right to keep and bear arm as we travel through different states because some impose restriction on "modern" types of arms and accessories like magazine fed semi-auto firearms?

Why is that?

As justice Thomas stated, this is making Second Amendment "second class right" and making gun owners "second class citizens".  And for too many decades, gun owners in states like CA/NY/NJ have been treated like "second class citizens" and states have made Second Amendment "second class right" and it's time to change that, just as it has been for First Amendment.

"National Constitutional Carry Act" addresses this core issue to allow "We the People" exercise national constitutional carry under the Second Amendment expanded to "modern" types of arms and accessories.  So we are able to exercise RKBA in all states using "modern" types of arms and accessories such as larger than 10 round capacity magazine fed semi-auto firearms and states should not impose any restriction on our Second Amendment right as we travel through different states

[230RN]

Live Life:

"As justice Thomas stated, this is making Second Amendment "second class right" and making gun owners "second class citizens".  And for too many decades, gun owners in states like CA/NY/NJ have been treated like "second class citizens" and states have made Second Amendment "second class right" and it's time to change that, just as it has been for First Amendment."

Thank you.

And why isn't it glaringly obvious that every question brought up about the subject is another powerfully valid point against the very concept?

There sure seems to be a lot of those questions / valid points against it.

The way it's going, a really comprehensive bill dealing with all the contradictions in State Laws and drinking versus sipping and schools versus 1000 feet would almost be as big as the tax code. Well, that's an exaggeration for the sake of making a point.  And all youse guys are just <ahem, koff-koff> "interest balancing."

Yikes.  Somehow I though all the "interest balancing" was done in 1791 by some pretty sharp cookies.

  I submit again, the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights --the statement which justifies the Bill Of Rights' very existence:

-----------------------------
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
-----------------------------
https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/preamble/

Don't contemplate making laws which misconstrue or abuse the government's powers, please.

There's quite enough of that going on anyway.

NO NATIONAL RECIPROCITY !

Terry, 230RN

[Hawkmoon]

I read the actual 6 page bill, and if it passes as is, I’d be happy. Summery is that if you’re legal to carry in your home state, you’re legal to carry everywhere.

Not good enough. Nearly half the states still require carry permits. I should not require a permission slip from any state to exercise a constitutionally "guaranteed" right. Unless a proposed law removes the states' ability to require carry permits, it's no help.

[Hawkmoon]

Aren't those issues today as well, though?  Even if my permit is accepted somewhere, I still have to go check up on their laws and see where I'm allowed to carry and so forth.  It might not solve everything, but it puts us ahead of where we are today, doesn't it?

No. Because it's a half-way (or less), imperfect "solution" that leaves a ton of unresolved problems and issues, but if it should pass we won't get another chance for probably decades. Legislators have short memories. Try to come back and fix some of the deficiencies, an the response will be, "Didn't we just pass a bill on this? Go away, we have bigger problems to address."

And let's not forget that any law creating or allowing permitless carry has to also rescind or modify the National Gun Free School Zone Act, which makes it a federal felony to carry a firearm within 1000 feet of ANY school unless you have a permit issued by the state in which the school is located. Remove permits but leave that law on the books, and every gun owner will be a felon within a week.

[cordex]

No. Because it's a half-way (or less), imperfect "solution" that leaves a ton of unresolved problems and issues, but if it should pass we won't get another chance for probably decades. Legislators have short memories. Try to come back and fix some of the deficiencies, an the response will be, "Didn't we just pass a bill on this? Go away, we have bigger problems to address."

Decades of incremental improvement through imperfect solutions have actually advanced gun ownership and carry an amazing amount, whereas the perfect solution has yet to be even proposed, much less passed.

[Hawkmoon]

Decades of incremental improvement through imperfect solutions have actually advanced gun ownership and carry an amazing amount, whereas the perfect solution has yet to be even proposed, much less passed.

Yes, things have improved considerably in many states. Unfortunately, I live in the northeast, where things have not improved much at all. Maine went to permitless carry several years ago, but even that has a bunch of loopholes so I obtained and maintain a Maine carry permit just in case I ever visit Acadia National Park again. The rest of the New England states (excluding Vermont), New York, New Jersey, and Maryland are horrible -- and that hasn't changed at all.

[cordex]

Yes, things have improved considerably in many states. Unfortunately, I live in the northeast, where things have not improved much at all. Maine went to permitless carry several years ago, but even that has a bunch of loopholes so I obtained and maintain a Maine carry permit just in case I ever visit Acadia National Park again. The rest of the New England states (excluding Vermont), New York, New Jersey, and Maryland are horrible -- and that hasn't changed at all.

That seems to make the argument for an improvement - even if only incremental - at the Federal level, doesn't it?

If gun owners in all those states who had major improvements instead crossed their arms and stomped their feet because the bill that changed them from may issue to shall issue didn't also let them carry in bars, or the bill that introduced Constitutional Carry didn't also let you carry on an airplane they'd all have remained stagnant - or worse allowed more anti-gun bills to pass.

Again, I understand the argument that the feds messing with gun laws has not worked out well for us in the past, but:
1. Our opponents don't have any such qualms, and you telling your reps not to pass any pro gun laws doesn't form some kind of armistice with the anti-gunners.
2. Incremental improvements of imperfect pro-gun laws have made amazing strides in the past 25 years in the states that were able to pass them.
3. The incremental approach has a slow, normalizing impact on guns.
4. There will never, ever be a perfect bill.

[230RN]

Decades of incremental improvement through imperfect solutions have actually advanced gun ownership and carry an amazing amount, whereas the perfect solution has yet to be even proposed, much less passed.

All as a result of initially ignoring the challenge of the founders to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government's powers.

No National Reciprocity !

Terry, 230RN

REF (The challenge):

https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/preamble/

[cordex]

All as a result of initially ignoring the challenge of the founders to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government's powers.

What, in your mind, will restore us to the utopia of having done things right from the beginning?  Will SCOTUS sweep in and roll back all government overreach since forever?  In either of our lifetimes?

[Hawkmoon]

What, in your mind, will restore us to the utopia of having done things right from the beginning?  Will SCOTUS sweep in and roll back all government overreach since forever?  In either of our lifetimes?

Federal preemption, not "reciprocity."

Reciprocity means each state must recognize licenses from other states. Firearms carry licenses/permits are antithetical to the 2nd Amendment. A proper preemption bill would simply say that no state shall impose any restrictions on the right of the People to bear arms as provided in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, nor shall any state require a license or permit in order for the People to exercise their 2A right.

The bill would also have to repeal or revise the GFSZA, since the act requires a license from the state and preemption will eliminate carry licenses.

[Ben]

With the whole "IANAL and don't know anything" preface, I'm wondering if whatever might get passed could have some kind of "kill switch". In other words, language that says that states can be less restrictive than the law, but not more. Then if some supermajority commie legislature comes in the future, that said they want to make the "national standards" more restrictive, the "kill switch" would be implemented to simply kill national reciprocity, and everything goes back to the states, as it is now.

If such a bill is going to happen, I would really like to see a way to escape it being abused in the future.

[230RN]

Cordex said,

"Again, I understand the argument that the feds messing with gun laws has not worked out well for us in the past, but:"

But nuthin'.

"1. Our opponents don't have any such qualms, and you telling your reps not to pass any pro gun laws doesn't form some kind of armistice with the anti-gunners."

There is no "armistice" or "compromise" or "rapprochement"with an organization which has repeatedly demonstrated that its ultimate goal is removal of the right to own arms.  "If I could have gotten one more vote in the Senate, I'd have said 'turn 'em all in, Mr. and Mrs. America." (Exact copy of statement readily available.)

"Their" idea of compromise is that it's one more step toward that ultimate goal.  "Our" idea of compromise is continuing to shoot tin cans off the fence from our back porch and leave me alone."  Wolves and lambs?

"2. Incremental improvements of imperfect pro-gun laws have made amazing strides in the past 25 years in the states that were able to pass them."
Is it a deliberate omission to avoid noting that the reverse is also true? 

"3. The incremental approach has a slow, normalizing impact on guns."
Is it a deliberate omission to avoid noting that the reverse is also true?  Oops! I repeated myself.

"4. There will never, ever be a perfect bill."

"Quod," as the man said, "erat demonstrandum."

And you want to play this incredibly dangerous game essentially for the sake of a few who have business, famiies, extra homes, etc in firearms-restricted States?  Or maybe just for the Noble Right involved,  when we are, realistically, doing pretty well with the present legal mish-mosh?  You want to throw another huge variable into the mix?  I question the wisdom of "opening another front," like Operation Barbarossa.

Unwise, I say.  Unwise and foolish.

I've about shot my wad on this one.  The arguments "for" are at root, emotional, whereas those "against" are well-founded in long-term practical observations of legislative behavior and the dedication and expertise of the anti-gunners to slowly corrupt the intent of what we would call "noble" goals... Just remember the "sensitive areas" ploy involved, where taking a crap in a supermarket toilet with a concealed gun becomes prohibited because it is now a "sensitive area."  (An exaggeration for the sake of illustration.)

I close again with:

No National Reciprocity !

You want it?  Look out, you just might get it.

Terry, 230RN

Edited to clarify "rather, for the sake of " to "Or maybe just for "

[cordex]

"1. Our opponents don't have any such qualms, and you telling your reps not to pass any pro gun laws doesn't form some kind of armistice with the anti-gunners."

There is no "armistice" or "compromise" or "rapprochement"with an organization which has repeatedly demonstrated that its ultimate goal is removal of the right to own arms.  "If I could have gotten one more vote in the Senate, I'd have said 'turn 'em all in, Mr. and Mrs. America." (Exact copy of statement readily available.)

"Their" idea of compromise is that it's one more step toward that ultimate goal.  "Our" idea of compromise is continuing to shoot tin cans off the fence from our back porch and leave me alone."  Wolves and lambs?

… riiiight.  Who are you arguing with here?  Your proposal is to do what, exactly?

"2. Incremental improvements of imperfect pro-gun laws have made amazing strides in the past 25 years in the states that were able to pass them."
Is it a deliberate omission to avoid noting that the reverse is also true? 

So you agree that the side which acts when they can tends to make progress even if they don’t get the whole shebang all at once?

"3. The incremental approach has a slow, normalizing impact on guns."
Is it a deliberate omission to avoid noting that the reverse is also true?  Oops! I repeated myself.

You mean that failing to push for even imperfect pro-gun laws has failed to normalize guns?  I agree, but I’m not sure that helps you.

And you want to play this incredibly dangerous game essentially for the sake of a few who have business, famiies, extra homes, etc in firearms-restricted States?  Or rather, for the sake of the Noble Right involved,  when we are, realistically, doing pretty well with the present legal mish-mosh?  You want to throw another huge variable into the mix?  I question the wisdom of "opening another front," like Operation Barbarossa.

Unwise, I say.  Unwise and foolish.

Buddy, my state is way more gun friendly than yours. I don’t stand to gain much from it. I’m not sure why your arguments wouldn’t apply to any imperfect improvement of gun laws at any level.

I've about shot my wad on this one.  The arguments "for" are at root, emotional, whereas those "against" are well-founded in long-term practical observations of legislative behavior and the dedication and expertise of the anti-gunners to slowly corrupt the intent of what we would call "noble" goals...

Wait, you think someone else is the one making emotional arguments?   

I remain undecided on this, but your arguments have done more to convince me of the other side than the supporters of national reciprocity.

Federal preemption, not "reciprocity."

Reciprocity means each state must recognize licenses from other states. Firearms carry licenses/permits are antithetical to the 2nd Amendment. A proper preemption bill would simply say that no state shall impose any restrictions on the right of the People to bear arms as provided in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, nor shall any state require a license or permit in order for the People to exercise their 2A right.

The bill would also have to repeal or revise the GFSZA, since the act requires a license from the state and preemption will eliminate carry licenses.

That might be better, but isn’t it still letting the Feds dip their toes into carry regulation?  Even more, I would argue. How would that not open us up to worse policies, as has been argued?

[Hawkmoon]

Federal preemption, not "reciprocity."

Reciprocity means each state must recognize licenses from other states. Firearms carry licenses/permits are antithetical to the 2nd Amendment. A proper preemption bill would simply say that no state shall impose any restrictions on the right of the People to bear arms as provided in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, nor shall any state require a license or permit in order for the People to exercise their 2A right.

The bill would also have to repeal or revise the GFSZA, since the act requires a license from the state and preemption will eliminate carry licenses.

I remain undecided on this, but your arguments have done more to convince me of the other side than the supporters of national reciprocity.
That might be better, but isn’t it still letting the Feds dip their toes into carry regulation?  Even more, I would argue. How would that not open us up to worse policies, as has been argued?

How does limiting the states to the 2A in any way open things up any more than they already are for the feds to "dip their toes" into firearms regulation? Write the preemption law so that it also prevents the Congress from enacting any law or regulation that infringes the 2A -- doesn't matter, because a later Congress could just repeal that law.

This is why even if someone says "preemption" rather than "reciprocity," I want to see the actual language of the proposed bill. But "reciprocity" stands on an acceptance that the states can require a license or permit to allow us to exercise a Constitutional right. For that simple reason, as far as I'm concerned "reciprocity" is off the table. Preemption is, IMHO, worth considering.

[230RN]

One more time....

By me, elsewhere:

"It would be like leaving a ladder by your daughter's open window with a red light in her room in the middle of summer's nighttime 'prowley' hours."

My solution is "Don't put the ladder against the wall in the first place."

In other words, forget about generating reciprocity on the federal level, it's just too darned dangerous, as stated again and again in various ways by various posters.

All else is folderol and arguing for the sheer sake of arguing and for questionable intent.

No National Reciprocity !

If you want  to tie your own noose, go ahead.

Terry, 230RN

[AZRedhawk44]

Right now, carry of a firearm (concealed otherwise) is vaguely protected by the 2A, but more importantly, the practice of permitting or prohibiting it is exercised by the Laboratory of the Several States and is protected by the 10th Amendment.

Given that the 2A is a paper shield, I honestly have more faith in the 10A protecting us when it comes to CCW and variations on carry laws.

However, once Congress passes ANY bill in our favor pre-empting the 2A Prohibitionist regions, the antis will learn this exact same trick and will just wait 10-20 years and do the EXACT SAME THING.

I don't want to carry in California or New York.  I don't want to go to California or New York.  To Hell with California and New York.

It's not worth the risk.

Now... if you want to pass an Amendment to the Constitution that sings it out clear as day, something like: That Second Amendment?  The first clause is a preamble.  The second clause means exactly what it means.  The People can own, carry, and/or train with, all arms.  No region under the jurisdiction of the United States shall infringe on that.  There is no such thing as a "sensitive" (or any other exempted concept) area in the United States where arms are prohibited to the People.  There is no person in the United States important enough to disarm the People in his presence.  There is no legal finesse in the phrase "shall not be infringed."

I'd support that.