"Shall issue" concealed carry nationwide if Fed national reciprocity bill passes

[Pb]

If your LEOs won't issue you one, you would just have to get a non-resident one from FL etc... and you could carry in your home state!

CA, HI, NY, NJ etc gunners would LOVE this if it become law!!!!

http://freebeacon.com/issues/national-reciprocity-bill-will-apply-non-resident-gun-carry-permits/

[230RN]

I'll have to repeat what I've said all along....

My general principle is:

 Whatever may be written in terms of being satisfactory to us in one year can be amended in the next year to be not so satisfactory.

 Foot in the door, camel's nose under the tent flaps, and all other applicable platitudes.

 I'm adamant about keeping the federal government out of the concealed carry business.

 Regardless of the NRA's recommendations.

 And I'm an NRA lifer.

 While I recognize the legitimate desire for some of us to carry in restrictive States, the problem should be resolved within those States regarding reciprocity or recognition of carry permits. Difficult, but preferable to having the Federal Government toying with the concept of concealed carry.

 There. I said it, and I ain't takin' it back.

 Terry, 230RN

[wmenorr67]

My take on it is 14th Amendment, the Federal Government has already spoken on it. 

This is just a "rubber stamp."

Too many states will never recognize permits from other states unless they are forced into it. 

Just as in the gay marriage battle, several states wanted to not recognize gay marriages from other states.  And I'm sorry but I don't see any amendment that states being married is a right.

[MechAg94]

I can live with it as long as it only deals with recognition of licenses.  No federal license at all.  Most of the people I see talking about it are looking at that only.

[230RN]

MechAg94 said,

I can live with it as long as it only deals with recognition of licenses.  No federal license at all.  Most of the people I see talking about it are looking at that only.

Terry (me) said,

 

Whatever may be written in terms of being satisfactory to us in one year can be amended in the next year to be not so satisfactory.

We differ in our paranoia level I guess.    

Terry

[Ben]

Holy crap -- I can't believe they put that provision in! I believe 3/4 of the CA population will drop dead of a heart attack or brain explosion if it passes.

Two birds, one stone. 

[Scout26]

I've often wonder what the "take" is for Utah and Florida when issuing non-resident licenses.  And I've wondered why more states don't do it.

[Scout26]

Are they calling it the Shaneen Allen Bill?

[Ben]

I just popped over to calguns after reading this topic. Someone mentioned that there is apparently a provision in the bill that if a state is "no issue" the bill would not apply. I would expect CA to attempt to become "no issue".

I'm sure it would result in a lot of lawyer time though. CA already prohibits loaded and unloaded open carry, so with no CCW either, it doesn't seem like they would have a leg to stand on constitutionally. Their OC prohibition might end up having been a good thing in the long run since it should tie their hands on CCW.

I'm curious to see if the Rs have the cajones to push this bill through while they have their majority.

[Scout26]

IIRC, there are no "no issue" states.  Most of the "May Issue" are "No Issue" in everything but name.  Simply because if they were "No Issue" they'd have a constitutional problem under McDonald. 

[RoadKingLarry]

 

I'm curious to see if the Rs have the cajones to push this bill through while they have their majority.

 
Seriously?!?
 

[Pb]

230RN, it is a mistake to not support a HUGE HUGE gain for RKBA.  This would allow millions and millions of ordinary folks in CA, NJ, etc to start carrying for protection.  This will create millions of new people vested in protecting RKBA.

People in these states say, what has the NRA done for me?

This is a wonderful answer.

The 14th Ammendment applies to the Second, and this is a very appropriate use of federal action as defined by the 14th Ammendment:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[230RN]

Yuh, I've heard that before.  It is all relevant to today, though.

Tomorrow some hand-wringing legislator can express concern that those people from (name a "free" State of your choice) where they can carry a gun without even extensive testing to see if they can handle one safely, can come to our State and pack a .44 Magnum with those cop-killing dum-dum bullets willy-nilly... so we ought to amend the law to specifically disallow that.

That's only one admittedly hypothetical situation.  Expand the theory according to your recollections of past activities of the anti-gunners.  At root, they don't want anybody carrying guns.  Period.  Nibble, nibble, nibble, and the 14th Amendment be damned.  It's not like they haven't written and passed patently unconstitutional laws before.

If you can't see that, we must permanently disagree.

Yeah, I know it's all "carry according to the laws of the other State you're entering,"  but opening that kind of door --in terms of next year, or the  year after that --bothers me no end, and "bargains" will be struck sooner or later: "Maybe we can tack it onto a wetlands protection bill, eh?"

Camel's nose, and all that.

So pardon my paranoia and adamance about not letting the Feds play with concealed carry.

Terry

[mtnbkr]

And this is why we'll never get closer to universal CCW, much less universal Constitutional carry.  Every time someone tries to get the FedGov to follow the Constitution, someone has to jump up and yammer on about camel noses, tents, and what *might* happen.  Hell, what might happen is they make being armed illegal full stop.  Hasn't happened yet, but it could, so why are we worrying about the govt being bound by existing amendments?  Gun owners are their own worst enemy. :|

Chris

[MechAg94]

Yuh, I've heard that before.  It is all relevant to today, though.

Tomorrow some hand-wringing legislator can express concern that those people from (name a "free" State of your choice) where they can carry a gun without even extensive testing to see if they can handle one safely, can come to our State and pack a .44 Magnum with those cop-killing dum-dum bullets willy-nilly... so we ought to amend the law to specifically disallow that.

That's only one admittedly hypothetical situation.  Expand the theory according to your recollections of past activities of the anti-gunners.  At root, they don't want anybody carrying guns.  Period.  Nibble, nibble, nibble, and the 14th Amendment be damned.  It's not like they haven't written and passed patently unconstitutional laws before.

If you can't see that, we must permanently disagree.

Yeah, I know it's all "carry according to the laws of the other State you're entering,"  but opening that kind of door --in terms of next year, or the  year after that --bothers me no end, and "bargains" will be struck sooner or later: "Maybe we can tack it onto a wetlands protection bill, eh?"

Camel's nose, and all that.

So pardon my paranoia and adamance about not letting the Feds play with concealed carry.

Terry

All that stuff can happen if we do nothing also.  There is nothing we can do that cannot be undone later.  We could make it difficult, but we can't prevent it.   Even a Constitutional Amendment can be undone with sufficient support.  The fight for gun rights will never end.  All we can do is push it as far as we can and make sure we encourage the next generation of shooters and hunters to continue the fight.  

[Ben]

All that stuff can happen if we do nothing also.  There is nothing we can do that cannot be undone later.  We could make it difficult, but we can't prevent it.   Even a Constitutional Amendment can be undone with sufficient support.  The fight for gun rights will never end.  All we can do is push it as far as we can and make sure we encourage the next generation of shooters and hunters to continue the fight.  

Which is another plus for getting a couple more million people's skin into the game, which this bill would do.

People who don't have a right have less enthusiasm over preserving that right. Once you get critical mass, the game changes. Even for things that aren't rights.

Try getting prohibition reinstated. Try instituting a ten day wait on buying a car. You would be vastly outnumbered. Either of these examples could have a future nose in the tent. Maybe everybody switches to pot in 20 years so you no longer have the votes to stop prohibition. Maybe everybody has a self driving car in 20 years, so who cares if there's a ten day wait for a minority to buy a "manual" car?

Looking for perfection on CCW is like looking for that perfect presidential candidate. If everybody did that this time around, Hillary would be queen.

[Hawkmoon]

And this is why we'll never get closer to universal CCW, much less universal Constitutional carry.  Every time someone tries to get the FedGov to follow the Constitution, someone has to jump up and yammer on about camel noses, tents, and what *might* happen.  Hell, what might happen is they make being armed illegal full stop.  Hasn't happened yet, but it could, so why are we worrying about the govt being bound by existing amendments?  Gun owners are their own worst enemy. :|

Thank you. You said it better than I would have.

I've been following the discussion of this bill over on The Firing Line forum. I probably shouldn't be, but I'm astonished at how many purportedly pro-gun members over there are against this -- without even having read the language of the bill. They're still ranting and raving about "federal permits" and the problem of the feds establishing minimum training requirements ... NONE of which is in the bill. The way I look at it, pro-gun folks have been wishing for uniform reciprocity/recognition for decades. All of a sudden, we have a President who wants to give it to us and a Congress that might ... just might ... go along with him, and these people want to kill it!

Good grief!

Yes, of course the Democrats will try to sabotage it. Our job is to keep the pressure on the Republicans in Congress to not allow that to happen.

[230RN]

OK, I'm outnumbered.  I've been outnumbered before.

Time will tell.

But others have the same concerns.

Terry

[MechAg94]

OK, I'm outnumbered.  I've been outnumbered before.

Time will tell.

But others have the same concerns.

Terry

I doubt I would say we have no concerns.  I certainly do.  But I would rather make the attempt than not try due to those concerns. 

[wmenorr67]

OK, I'm outnumbered.  I've been outnumbered before.

Time will tell.

But others have the same concerns.

Terry

What is wrong with the federal government forcing states to do what they should already be doing.

Imagine if your DL wasn't recognized by other states.

[Perd Hapley]

What is wrong with the federal government forcing states to do what they should already be doing.

What's wrong is that the feds so often force things the states shouldn't be doing. And who should decide what rights we do or do not have? Washington, or the states?

[Ben]

What's wrong is that the feds so often force things the states shouldn't be doing. And who should decide what rights we do or do not have? Washington, or the states?

When it's the Bill of Rights, shouldn't it be the Federal government ensuring that all states recognize, and do not hinder, an unalienable right?

If it's a state forcing all car drivers to wear pink panamas with purple hat bands, that's something the federal government should not interfere with.

[Hawkmoon]

Reading assignment: http://www.pagunblog.com/2017/01/16/the-constitutional-authority-for-national-reciprocity/

And in that there are additional links.

[Perd Hapley]

When it's the Bill of Rights, shouldn't it be the Federal government ensuring that all states recognize, and do not hinder, an unalienable right?

Yes, the fourteenth amendment has made the feds the guarantors of our liberties. This is not always a good thing. For example, Roe v Wade.

[Hawkmoon]

FWIW, I'm currently at the annual SHOT Show and I spent part of this morning having a chat with one of the legislative grassroots honchos at the NRA booth. The NRA is solidly behind the proposed bill, although they caution that in the past there have been several different versions. They are also aware that the language may change, and that their role (as well as ours) will be to keep watch on it and to resist unacceptable, "poison pill" amendments. I felt moderately smart when the NRA guy shared that the NRA agrees with me that the failure of the bill to address repeal of the federal Gun Free School Zone Act is a problem, in that the GFSZA specifically allows permitees to transit school zones when armed only if they have a permit/license issued by the state in which the school zone is located. So the proposed reciprocity law as it currently stands would still leave us with the school zone mine field.

In sum, though, the NRA currently feels this is the best chance we've had in decades to make a significant advance in RKBA legislation.