KHOU - 17 states call on Congress to abandon concealed carry gun law

[SewTexas]

New York isn't going to allow Texans to carry guns into their state, it's not going to happen. Neither is NJ, or Maryland or CA....Not without major law changes. I simply don't understand why people want this.

To me it's about being able to a gun into states like New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont. Right now a can't get there from here.

I should have worded that differently, I understand the "desire", someday I would love to take a road trip up that direction. But...I understand the ... "unwritten rules" of doing so. You don't take a car with Texas plates and you don't take your gun and there are certain areas you simply don't stop in. I would rather follow that than risk some federal law that would bring more "compromise", what more would we have to give up?

[The Annoyed Man]

New day...same tired old arguments of blood in the streets if there isn't more restrictive gun control.

Not only that, but the BIGGEST fear those 17 AGs have is that the residents of their states will discover that if they lived somewhere else, they’d have more personal liberty.......and then they’d either begin demanding it for themselves, or they’d leave.

Like my signature line says: “Give me liberty, or I’ll get up and get it myself.”

[Beiruty]

I am no slave, I am a freeman. The moment the 1stA is muzzled, the 2ndA would be un-muzzled

[K9Texas]

The Democratic attorney generals argue that concealed-carry reciprocity would empower gun traffickers, terrorists and other criminals. And they say it would help criminals avoid permit requirements altogether should they assert residence in one of the 12 states that allow gun owners to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

I don't think the " My State doesn't issue a permit" will fly IF congress passes a national reciprocity law. My logic here is the Drivers License. I just think you would need some type of license for a national reciprocity. The work around I see is people living in a State that does not issue a license (Very few States) they would need to get an out of State license.

I REALLY REALLY HOPE Congress passes this law. The Texas LTC is accepted by most states except the ultra liberal places like NY, CA, IL etc. Not that I plan to drive there but it is would be nice to know my wife or I can travel all 50 without any worries.

[SewTexas]

The Democratic attorney generals argue that concealed-carry reciprocity would empower gun traffickers, terrorists and other criminals. And they say it would help criminals avoid permit requirements altogether should they assert residence in one of the 12 states that allow gun owners to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

I don't think the " My State doesn't issue a permit" will fly IF congress passes a national reciprocity law. My logic here is the Drivers License. I just think you would need some type of license for a national reciprocity. The work around I see is people living in a State that does not issue a license (Very few States) they would need to get an out of State license.

I REALLY REALLY HOPE Congress passes this law. The Texas LTC is accepted by most states except the ultra liberal places like NY, CA, IL etc. Not that I plan to drive there but it is would be nice to know my wife or I can travel all 50 without any worries.

you point out a "compromise" that would have to be made....
states that don't issue licenses would have to give up and start issuing them...I'd say that's a loss

what else would we have to give up to get this?

[K9Texas]

No, I am not suggesting a compromise. I was just saying I don't think Congress will include a non license state. I expect the bill would read something like " Anyone with a valid LICENSE to possess a handgun ......" One State that comes to mind is Arizona. You don't NEED a license to carry there however they DO issue a plastic license to carry. I also suspect any reciprocity law would be limited to concealed carry and exclude open carry.

[ScottDLS]

The Democratic attorney generals argue that concealed-carry reciprocity would empower gun traffickers, terrorists and other criminals. And they say it would help criminals avoid permit requirements altogether should they assert residence in one of the 12 states that allow gun owners to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

I don't think the " My State doesn't issue a permit" will fly IF congress passes a national reciprocity law. My logic here is the Drivers License. I just think you would need some type of license for a national reciprocity. The work around I see is people living in a State that does not issue a license (Very few States) they would need to get an out of State license.

I REALLY REALLY HOPE Congress passes this law. The Texas LTC is accepted by most states except the ultra liberal places like NY, CA, IL etc. Not that I plan to drive there but it is would be nice to know my wife or I can travel all 50 without any worries.

There is currently only one state that does not issue a license. Vermont.

you point out a "compromise" that would have to be made....
states that don't issue licenses would have to give up and start issuing them...I'd say that's a loss

what else would we have to give up to get this?

[TreyHouston]

So let's apply the same logic they are appying.

Thye can do as they like, but in the spirit of reciprocity, folks with drivers licenses from those 17 States cannot drive in Texas (or the other States wanting reciprocity) and we'll call it good.

Jeff B.

Geez Jeff! Its not like cars kill more people than guns! Get your head on straight!

[MaduroBU]

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.

[mccloven27]

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."

[Liberty]

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 don't know what you mean there. We already offer reciprocity to just about every other state. So far it hasn't worked out too bad.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[TxD]

[quote="Charles L. Cotton"][quote="MaduroBU"]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.[/quote]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.[/quote]
Nice to see a "grownup" in the room.
Thanks, Charles.

[Vol Texan]

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.

And THIS is why I read this forum. Well stated, Charles.

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!

[Soccerdad1995]

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,