TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

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.

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.

I frequently don't reply to your posts, Charles, because I tend to agree with you and honestly can't think of anything that needs to be added. So let me just say,