Democrats promise to filibuster national reciprocity in Senate

[ralewis]

I find it impossible to believe anyone would want the Feds in on anything concerning license to carry . Only anti gun folks want that . Hope that door stays closed .

They aren't creating a license they'd just be compelling the states to recognize each other's licenses....which is a legitimate function of the Federal Govt IMO.

Admittedly I haven't given a lot of thought to this since I never thought it'd even be a possibility....But below are some ideas based on just a few initial thoughts...

I'd love it if this established at least what IL does. IL allows concealed carry in a vehicle IF you have a license from another state. I think allowing that (for any state that issues licenses) and affirming concealed carry anywhere in the US is allowable on any public right of way. Also for any 'shall issue' state establishes Reciprocity subject to the State's requirements for CCW. States like MD/NY/NJ/etc wouldn't be impacted except you can drive thru with a concealed handgun on a public road if you had a license from any state.

Seems to me this wouldn't be infringing on a State's right to restrict, and if a state like MD isn't SHALL issue, then no reciprocity. But compelling states to allow for peacable journey on a pubic right of way seems ok to me.

[ScottDLS]

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate the wearing, carrying, bearing, trading, selling, of arms in the States. Just like they don't set the speed limit on your neighborhood streets and state highways. They can influence it through the use of Federal funding, but otherwise regulation of traffic flow is up to the States. Same with guns. States can make laws regulating firearms as long as they don't completely invalidate your 2nd amendment rights. SCOTUS said this in Heller and McDonald decisions. They also said the right is not unlimited, and States can decide how to regulate it. Wyoming will approach it differently than New Jersey. That's what Federalism is about. National reciprocity is not necessary to be imposed by the Federal government, however perhaps the States should be required to offer non-resident licenses of the same category and requirements (other than residency), that they offer to residents.

Driver's license reciprocity (other than for interstate CDL's) is not mandated by the Federal government, it's just that all 50 states recognize each others' subject to the same (driving) regulations that they place on residents. I can't drive 85 on the interstate in Maryland, just because I can in Texas.

Thanks Scott. I think I understand what you're saying, but the federal government already regulates the "wearing, carrying, bearing, trading, selling, of arms in the States" with things like the NFA, GFSZA, NICS checks, etc, correct? I guess I understand a reluctance to allow the feds any say in the licensing aspect specifically, as that could be used as precedent by future administrations, but I really don't think the libs would need that excuse.

So is that really the main reason to oppose this? That it should be done at the state level? Like I said, I'm all for things being handled at the state level whenever possible, but this seems to be a win for us, so it feels weird to be against it. Especially since we know for a fact certain states will never institute reciprocity without being forced.

I know what you're saying, but the GCA, GFSZA, NICS, etc. are all of very dubious Constitutionality... I don't want to further encourage encroachment of the Feds on State authority. In practice, you're right, but I'd rather start rolling back the Feds' power not reinforce it with reciprocity.

There are actually people out there saying theft, assault, murder, gun misuse, and so on should be Federal offenses so we can have a uniform national criminal code and police force. That is not a republican & federalist form of government.

[RoyGBiv]

I like the idea of forcing States to recognize each others licenses.
I don't have the words to describe the joy I would feel ordering a meal in NYC wearing my gun.
IMO, States can regulate the how and where, but not to the point of eliminating an enumerated right. Today, NY (and other places) prevent me from exercising my 2A rights in their jurisdictions. I see it as well within Federal authority to intervene on my behalf.

The first round would be to force NY to honor my TX permit. The next round would be to push back against the inevitable waterfall of restrictions on how and where NY allows their permit holders to carry. Won't be a one-and-done win... but it would be good progress.

YMMV.

[bblhd672]

There are actually people out there saying theft, assault, murder, gun misuse, and so on should be Federal offenses so we can have a uniform national criminal code and police force. That is not a republican & federalist form of government.

You are correct, that is the form of government desired by the leftists/socialists/progressives/modern liberals. They very much want federal boots on our throats.

[suthdj]

Eg....
The left states will never agree to this but to get enough on board lets give them say.
1.no larger then a .380 with fmj
2.no more then 8 rounds.
3.no spare mags

See where this goes 5 more years oh a .380 is to much power now .22 etc..... and soon we got spit wad shooters.

[jmra]

Eg....
The left states will never agree to this but to get enough on board lets give them say.
1.no larger then a .380 with fmj
2.no more then 8 rounds.
3.no spare mags

See where this goes 5 more years oh a .380 is to much power now .22 etc..... and soon we got spit wad shooters.

Yep. Those "high powered" .22 rounds.

[LucasMcCain]

I know what you're saying, but the GCA, GFSZA, NICS, etc. are all of very dubious Constitutionality... I don't want to further encourage encroachment of the Feds on State authority. In practice, you're right, but I'd rather start rolling back the Feds' power not reinforce it with reciprocity.

There are actually people out there saying theft, assault, murder, gun misuse, and so on should be Federal offenses so we can have a uniform national criminal code and police force. That is not a republican & federalist form of government.

Okay. That makes sense. Now I better understand the objections. I knew there was an aspect of this I just wasn't quite getting. Thanks again, Scott.

[bigtek]

I know what you're saying, but the GCA, GFSZA, NICS, etc. are all of very dubious Constitutionality... I don't want to further encourage encroachment of the Feds on State authority. In practice, you're right, but I'd rather start rolling back the Feds' power not reinforce it with reciprocity.

I agree but as long as LEOSA is on the books, there's no legitimate reason it shouldn't include LTC too.

[G.A. Heath]

Any such legislation should be passed citing the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, and should operate under that authority.

For those who buy the NAGR/GOA/ect. line that this bill will make it easier for the feds to regulate all licenses to carry, it won't. They would still have to write a bill and pass it, this bill will not give them any additional votes nor will it reduce the threshold from a majority vote to something less.

[hovercat]

How would this affect those with "Constitutional Carry"? Would they need to get a license to carry in their home state?

[G.A. Heath]

In all but one case states with unlicensed carry offer a license for reciprocity, Vermont never issued a license and their residents would need a license from a state that offers non-resident licenses or the law would need a provision treating their DL from Vermont as a license if they have no criminal convictions.

[KLB]

In the face of a filibuster, they should pass it through the reconciliation process as practice for repealing Obamacare.

[Abraham]

I want the Federal Government having as little say so as possible...about anything.

[Charles L. Cotton]

We are long past the beginning of the feds dipping their toe into matters that should be solely within the police powers of the states. We aren't going back either, so deal with reality, not what you wish was true.

National reciprocity will not lead to Congress establishing laws related to carrying handguns. It is nothing more than an extension of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. I know, some people will argue that deals with court orders, but note I said "extension." Further, some states have courts issue carry licenses, and those most certainly would be covered.

Chas.

[E.Marquez]

We are long past the beginning of the feds dipping their toe into matters that should be solely within the police powers of the states. We aren't going back either, so deal with reality, not what you wish was true.

National reciprocity will not lead to Congress establishing laws related to carrying handguns. It is nothing more than an extension of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. I know, some people will argue that deals with court orders, but note I said "extension." Further, some states have courts issue carry licenses, and those most certainly would be covered.

Chas.

Charles, do I takes this to mean you fully support a national reciprocity law at the federal level?
Assuming so for discussion .. can you envision a "common sense and fair" national reciprocity law passed tomorrow that all welcome and agree, only to have it altered 2, 3, 4, years down the road by sleight of hand, announced on Friday before 4th of July weekend...only finding out Sunday the new change says you have to submit a favorable mental investigation report from a certified Doc on the federally approved list, further finding out that list has only 1 doc per state.

I guess what I mean is... once the "good" national reciprocity law is passed and all have patted each other on the back, is it not an easier process to add, modify the existing law adding things all we would had objected to strongly had it been included in the original bill? I accept my ignorance is showing, and why I ask.