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

[oljames3]

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,

[BBYC]

Now that SCOTUS admits it's an individual right, Federal legislation protecting concealed carry is in the same spirit as Federal legislation preventing States from enforcing segregation or miscegenation laws.

[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.

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]

I would agree on the point that states violating an individual right is a matter of federal law. However, though the 2A was essentially incorporated by Heller, my understanding is that the majority opinion was essentially silent on CC. While reciprocity mandated by congress may achieve a similar result to recognition and incorporation of a right to CC for some, but not all, gun owners, it is not, in my opinion, a substitute for a USSC opinion affirming and incorporating that right.

Could California, on the basis of Federal reciprocity for CC, impose its thinly veiled gun ban (list of safe handguns) on Texan LTCs? Would that limitation apply only to CC in California? Could they apply a ban on lead bullets to us should they adopt one? Even assuming that they can't apply their statutes outside of their states, the magazine restrictions and "safe handgun list" could make California a legal minefield and still functionally off limits to CC.

I still worry that while congressional action has a far better chance of near term success, it may carry with it troubles which are not at once visible. Specifically, I worry about the "drop safety" standards that California has adopted as a means of banning firearms or their push to incorporate poorly designed and conceived "ballistic fingerprint" and "smart gun" ideas. Even worse are bullet material standards which define essentially all metallic projectiles as either "regulated toxic waste" or "armor piercing". I have deep mistrust of linking my rights to states that would compromise them through any means at their disposal, and I worry that federal CC reciprocity might provide a template for them.

I whole heartedly support your goals, Mr. Cotton, but I am suspicious that the particular means in this case may prove costly in the long run.

[BBYC]

Could California, on the basis of Federal reciprocity for CC, impose its thinly veiled gun ban (list of safe handguns) on Texan LTCs? Would that limitation apply only to CC in California? Could they apply a ban on lead bullets to us should they adopt one? Even assuming that they can't apply their statutes outside of their states, the magazine restrictions and "safe handgun list" could make California a legal minefield and still functionally off limits to CC.

I still worry that while congressional action has a far better chance of near term success, it may carry with it troubles which are not at once visible. Specifically, I worry about the "drop safety" standards that California has adopted as a means of banning firearms or their push to incorporate poorly designed and conceived "ballistic fingerprint" and "smart gun" ideas. Even worse are bullet material standards which define essentially all metallic projectiles as either "regulated toxic waste" or "armor piercing". I have deep mistrust of linking my rights to states that would compromise them through any means at their disposal, and I worry that federal CC reciprocity might provide a template for them. .

You act they're not already trying to push more feral laws to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. They will do that no matter whether we stand up for our rights or roll over to appease them. In fact, history shows that efforts to appease evil only emboldens them to do more evil in the long run.

[OlBill]

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.

Well said. We already have national reciprocity laws. They just need to be enforced.

[chasfm11]

y'all are still comparing it to DL's. Driving laws are pretty much the same in every state. There are a few differences, and you have to know them. In some states you can't U turn unless there is a sign saying you can, whereas in other states you can unless there is a sign saying you can't. You have to know this stuff or you will get a ticket. A ticket is different than losing your carry rights. Nat Rec won't change the laws. 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.

For me it is real simple. We have family in PA. We drive there. Out of 1,500 miles in the trip, there are 12 miles in MD where I have to go through the FOPA routine to not be thrown in jail if I'm stopped. That means that I have to stop somewhere in VA on the way up, unload my EDC, lock it up and lock the ammo up someplace else - and this is inside of an RV. In my view, there is no reason for me traveling on a Federally funded highway (I-81) to have to go through this. And MD, like NJ and NY is vindictive you they do catch you.

The least acceptable change to me would be to amend FOPA to say that if you have a concealed license from your State of residence that you can travel anywhere on the Federal highway system carrying in your vehicle. FOPA does not appear to protect you if you stop (other than incidental gas, etc).

I get it that MD, NJ, NY, CA don't want you to be able to carry in their States but IL has already agreed to that after lengthy court battles. If the State has a concealed program, even if it is "May issue", there is no reason to restrict others from other States except political will. States should not be able to trump the Bill of Rights, no matter what their political will. The Feds have twisted the whole concept of regulating interstate commerce like a pretzel and there is no reason not to extend it to basic rights.

[MaduroBU]

Someone mentioned an extant national reciprocity law; i haven't heard of that, so please tell us more.

With regard to the point that California will try to ban guns at a Federal level regardless of our activity: of course, and I agree with you. I think it's prudent to avoid actions that they might use as a template or even a direct means of attacking us in the future. I'm not certain that is the case here, but I think that we need to fully consider the unintended consequences.

WRT travel in the Northeast, I think that is a far more practical scenario that would lend itself to specific legislation and would leave the door closed to NYC and California trying to turn the law around on us.