TexasCHLforum.com

chuck j wrote: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 .

LucasMcCain wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: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.

ScottDLS wrote: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.

suthdj wrote: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.

ScottDLS wrote: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.

ScottDLS wrote: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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.