And THIS is why I read this forum. Well stated, Charles.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I agree that the 10th Amendment should be respected to a much greater degree than it is. I also believe that there should be very few federal laws, none of which should overlap state police authority.MaduroBU wrote:I may be in the minority, but I feel that states have the right to determine reciprocity as they see fit. I would not want "reciprocity" in the opposite direction.
That said, it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that states abide by the Constitution and do not deny people constitutionally protected rights, when those protections apply to the states as well as the federal government. States have police powers and can pass/enforce criminal laws that do not violate the Constitution. However, states cannot pass a law denying a defendant a jury trial in a criminal case. States cannot pass laws that deny property rights to people based upon their race or religion. The SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and that it applies to the States. Thus a national reciprocity federal law would merely ensure that a recognized Constitutional right must honored by the states. States would still be free to create off-limits areas, apply their criminal laws to misuse of a handgun carried pursuant to a national reciprocity law, etc.
Chas.
As an ambassador for the 2A (as all of us are) we occasionally find ourselves getting into discussions with folks (some anti 2A, and others who are 'on the fence') who are well prepped with talking points. Reasoned discussion points like these are great to have in our arsenal for when we have these discussions. We may or may not convert the anti 2A folks, but those who are non-committal or 'on the fence' can often be shown the light of day with a reasonable discussion on the topic. A trip to the range also helps, of course!