TexasCHLforum.com

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.

This is a tricky area for me from a ideological standpoint, from a practical standpoint though you are spot on.
For me the tricky bit is how we handle the states that wish to do things we view as unconstitutional. On the one hand we hand the power over to the federal government, thereby allowing it to overrule the states wish. I am never a fan of adding power to a governing body and in this case my fear is that down the road (perhaps the next anti-gun president) could establish some very restrictive standards that the states have to follow to issue an LTC (similar to how the REAL ID act of 2005 established federal standards for DLs). On the other hand we have the fact that it appears some states are blatantly violating the 2nd amendment rights of the citizens that live there. Is the risk to the other states (the ones that don't have unrealistic LTC requirements) worth the reward of using federal power in this case? I don't know to be honest, I am in a biased position here in TX so my gut answer is leave it be and let the state's citizens handle their rights. However this is not a practical nor a necessarily just way to handle it. If the issue came up for a vote I would probably vote in the direction of national reciprocity, I would however want it added in that the federal side can never make any laws towards requirements to obtain an LTC. That's just my 2 cents and I am certainly not a lawyer nor as well versed in legislation as you though, so I doubt it's even worth the 2 lol.

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.

You may be in the minority but you are not alone. I would rather not see it because at this point the federal government just doesn't handle LTCs. Once they have any regulatory power over them whats to stop them from starting to set requirements to get the license. From there its just a stones throw to very restrictive LTC laws. This is the reason one of my favorite amendments has to be the 10th, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."