TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:We don't have reciprocity yet and I am not counting on it. Republicans seem to be all talk and no action. But be aware that some states have restrictions on the sale of certain firearms but that may not mean you can't carry them. California has a list of "compliant" guns that can be sold there. Massachusetts has restrictions on I believe trigger pull of certain guns. This is when you hate states rights. NJ has a ban on hollow points. I think even carrying ammo in DC is a crime.

Wouldn't even get close to passing in the Senate and even if it did would be held up by leftist "lawfare" and liberal judges until a new Democrat majority repealed it. There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.

I would only point out that the state behavior we are looking at here meets both of your criteria that I bolded above. Right now, I can't drive through or even visit a state like New York unless I want to give up my civil rights.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:We don't have reciprocity yet and I am not counting on it. Republicans seem to be all talk and no action. But be aware that some states have restrictions on the sale of certain firearms but that may not mean you can't carry them. California has a list of "compliant" guns that can be sold there. Massachusetts has restrictions on I believe trigger pull of certain guns. This is when you hate states rights. NJ has a ban on hollow points. I think even carrying ammo in DC is a crime.

Wouldn't even get close to passing in the Senate and even if it did would be held up by leftist "lawfare" and liberal judges until a new Democrat majority repealed it. There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.

I would only point out that the state behavior we are looking at here meets both of your criteria that I bolded above. Right now, I can't drive through or even visit a state like New York unless I want to give up my civil rights.

I think the argument against reciprocity would be that each state is eligible to set its own criteria for eligibility/obtaining/carrying with, a carry permit and provided they don't unconstitutionally infringe on your rights. An example would be Illinois. It is possible for you to obtain a non-res Illinois permit, as some members of the board have done. So rather than forcing every state to regulate carry the same way, the Feds should concentrate on making sure that the States don't violate your rights in doing so. It is already legal to carry in DC and IL for a non-res...IF you obtain a permit, and if you follow their local restrictions. As to interstate commerce, you may travel through states with firearms, even in violation of local law, as long as you follow the rules in the state of departure and state of arrival (FOPA 1986). That is an example of the Feds properly exercising oversight of interstate commerce (i.e. travel).

Maybe the same logic should be applied to a marriage license. People have to get one for each state in which they want to exercise the privileges of being married. Each state can determine age limits and other requirements for their licenses, including renewal fees and a "shall issue" license issued with good cause only.

Oh, yeah, and repeal LEOSA completely. There's no moral reason a retired public servant should have more rights than a private citizen. I'm completely serious about this suggestion. Every reason to deny reciprocity is a reason to repeal LEOSA, especially when NYPD and retired killed more innocent people than TX LTC.

Amend LEOSA to include LTC or repeal it. No more rights for thee and not for me.

If it's going to be like driver's licenses and automobile registration, it should be none of a snowflake state's business how many rounds I load in a magazine.

My pickup has to meet Texas' requirements for a safety sticker, not (thank goodness) California's, even in the unlikely case I drive in California. My Texas-legal handgun should the be the same. It's legal for me.

And, of course, I believe in State's rights and State sovereignty. I just don't believe in State tyranny.

ScottDLS wrote:There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.

1. "shall not be infringed"
The libertarian argument seems to be the federal government being as diligent fighting restrictions on owning and carrying guns as restrictions on voting or religious freedom.

2. "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"
They have the power to regulate such commerce. They have no Constitutional authority to regulate something merely because it affects interstate commerce, nor to regulate something after it passes through interstate commerce. Their legitimate power under the commerce clause ends with regulating actual commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. Plain English whether or not one agrees with the libertarian argument.

treadlightly wrote:If it's going to be like driver's licenses and automobile registration, it should be none of a snowflake state's business how many rounds I load in a magazine.

My pickup has to meet Texas' requirements for a safety sticker, not (thank goodness) California's, even in the unlikely case I drive in California. My Texas-legal handgun should the be the same. It's legal for me.

And, of course, I believe in State's rights and State sovereignty. I just don't believe in State tyranny.

Actually you have to meet California safety requirements for operating a vehicle in California, they just don’t have a convenient way to check their requirements if your car is registered in Texas. Example would be window tint darkness, bumper height or other requirements that vary from state to state. In OK for example, you may not carry a handgun caliber greater than .45 IIRC...even though your Texas license is recognized by OK. And you may not open carry in FL even though you can in Texas.

ScottDLS wrote:

treadlightly wrote:If it's going to be like driver's licenses and automobile registration, it should be none of a snowflake state's business how many rounds I load in a magazine.

My pickup has to meet Texas' requirements for a safety sticker, not (thank goodness) California's, even in the unlikely case I drive in California. My Texas-legal handgun should the be the same. It's legal for me.

And, of course, I believe in State's rights and State sovereignty. I just don't believe in State tyranny.

Actually you have to meet California safety requirements for operating a vehicle in California, they just don’t have a convenient way to check their requirements if your car is registered in Texas. Example would be window tint darkness, bumper height or other requirements that vary from state to state. In OK for example, you may not carry a handgun caliber greater than .45 IIRC...even though your Texas license is recognized by OK. And you may not open carry in FL even though you can in Texas.

That’s cheating, debating with factual arguments like that!

But silll, I don’t think local requirements for safety stickers apply to cars from states that don’t have them.

Correct. But you still have to meet the requirements of the state you’re driving in, even if your state doesn’t require inspection of the same things...

ScottDLS wrote:

Correct. But you still have to meet the requirements of the state you’re driving in, even if your state doesn’t require inspection of the same things...

I fail to see your point. My truck does not have to meet CA's emissions standards when I'm vacationing out there and I'm not required to have it inspected while I'm there.

I do have to abide by the traffic laws and other stuff, but not everything.

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:We don't have reciprocity yet and I am not counting on it. Republicans seem to be all talk and no action. But be aware that some states have restrictions on the sale of certain firearms but that may not mean you can't carry them. California has a list of "compliant" guns that can be sold there. Massachusetts has restrictions on I believe trigger pull of certain guns. This is when you hate states rights. NJ has a ban on hollow points. I think even carrying ammo in DC is a crime.

Wouldn't even get close to passing in the Senate and even if it did would be held up by leftist "lawfare" and liberal judges until a new Democrat majority repealed it. There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in the regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.

But it is unconstitutional for States to not acknowledge documents from other States in good faith(ie Full Faith and Credit clause). Imagine if you had to take a driving test and get a drivers license for all 50 states? It is akin to the same thing, only its backed up by a constitutional right that driving isn't - so I don't see a National Reciprocity Bill being Government overreach, only enforcement of current constitutional guarantees/rights.

Pariah3j wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:We don't have reciprocity yet and I am not counting on it. Republicans seem to be all talk and no action. But be aware that some states have restrictions on the sale of certain firearms but that may not mean you can't carry them. California has a list of "compliant" guns that can be sold there. Massachusetts has restrictions on I believe trigger pull of certain guns. This is when you hate states rights. NJ has a ban on hollow points. I think even carrying ammo in DC is a crime.

Wouldn't even get close to passing in the Senate and even if it did would be held up by leftist "lawfare" and liberal judges until a new Democrat majority repealed it. There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in the regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.

But it is unconstitutional for States to not acknowledge documents from other States in good faith(ie Full Faith and Credit clause). Imagine if you had to take a driving test and get a drivers license for all 50 states? It is akin to the same thing, only its backed up by a constitutional right that driving isn't - so I don't see a National Reciprocity Bill being Government overreach, only enforcement of current constitutional guarantees/rights.

Try bringing in your "legally" purchased marijuana from Colorado into Texas and see how that works out. I had an Illinois drivers license when I was 16 and it was not honored in NYC (must be 18- unless you are a terrorist).

rotor wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:We don't have reciprocity yet and I am not counting on it. Republicans seem to be all talk and no action. But be aware that some states have restrictions on the sale of certain firearms but that may not mean you can't carry them. California has a list of "compliant" guns that can be sold there. Massachusetts has restrictions on I believe trigger pull of certain guns. This is when you hate states rights. NJ has a ban on hollow points. I think even carrying ammo in DC is a crime.

Wouldn't even get close to passing in the Senate and even if it did would be held up by leftist "lawfare" and liberal judges until a new Democrat majority repealed it. There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in the regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.

But it is unconstitutional for States to not acknowledge documents from other States in good faith(ie Full Faith and Credit clause). Imagine if you had to take a driving test and get a drivers license for all 50 states? It is akin to the same thing, only its backed up by a constitutional right that driving isn't - so I don't see a National Reciprocity Bill being Government overreach, only enforcement of current constitutional guarantees/rights.

Try bringing in your "legally" purchased marijuana from Colorado into Texas and see how that works out. I had an Illinois drivers license when I was 16 and it was not honored in NYC (must be 18- unless you are a terrorist).

"Legally" purchased marijuana does not exists under federal law thus is illegal in any state. Big difference there.

seph wrote:

rotor wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:We don't have reciprocity yet and I am not counting on it. Republicans seem to be all talk and no action. But be aware that some states have restrictions on the sale of certain firearms but that may not mean you can't carry them. California has a list of "compliant" guns that can be sold there. Massachusetts has restrictions on I believe trigger pull of certain guns. This is when you hate states rights. NJ has a ban on hollow points. I think even carrying ammo in DC is a crime.

Wouldn't even get close to passing in the Senate and even if it did would be held up by leftist "lawfare" and liberal judges until a new Democrat majority repealed it. There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in the regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.

But it is unconstitutional for States to not acknowledge documents from other States in good faith(ie Full Faith and Credit clause). Imagine if you had to take a driving test and get a drivers license for all 50 states? It is akin to the same thing, only its backed up by a constitutional right that driving isn't - so I don't see a National Reciprocity Bill being Government overreach, only enforcement of current constitutional guarantees/rights.

Try bringing in your "legally" purchased marijuana from Colorado into Texas and see how that works out. I had an Illinois drivers license when I was 16 and it was not honored in NYC (must be 18- unless you are a terrorist).

"Legally" purchased marijuana does not exists under federal law thus is illegal in any state. Big difference there.

Seph, agreed. The argument being made though was that documents from one state should be automatically legal in another state and my point was that just because it is legal in one state does not make it legal in another state such as my drivers license in Illinois not being honored in NYC and for example a medical marijuana certificate in one state not making marijuana possession legal in another state. I can hope for reciprocity to pass but I don't expect that it will.

Pariah3j wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:We don't have reciprocity yet and I am not counting on it. Republicans seem to be all talk and no action. But be aware that some states have restrictions on the sale of certain firearms but that may not mean you can't carry them. California has a list of "compliant" guns that can be sold there. Massachusetts has restrictions on I believe trigger pull of certain guns. This is when you hate states rights. NJ has a ban on hollow points. I think even carrying ammo in DC is a crime.

Wouldn't even get close to passing in the Senate and even if it did would be held up by leftist "lawfare" and liberal judges until a new Democrat majority repealed it. There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in the regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.

But it is unconstitutional for States to not acknowledge documents from other States in good faith(ie Full Faith and Credit clause). Imagine if you had to take a driving test and get a drivers license for all 50 states? It is akin to the same thing, only its backed up by a constitutional right that driving isn't - so I don't see a National Reciprocity Bill being Government overreach, only enforcement of current constitutional guarantees/rights.

Driving Licenses do not have to be acknowledged by all states as they are not "official acts" in the definition applied to the "full faith and credit clause". It so happens that the 50 states DO recognize each other's licenses, but that is a function of individual states' laws and "compacts" that most states subscribe to. When I went to college in New York in the 1980's, Vermont was nearby. College students in Vermont from out of state were required to get a "non-resident" Driver's License after a certain period of time in VT even though they were not required to legally change their permanent residence from their home state. This was also back when it was legal to have multiple state driver's licenses and some truckers were required to have one in each state that they dropped or picked up in. For commercial interstate drivers the Feds got involved later to ensure that truckers could only get one. (They used to do what some handgun licensees do and get multiple in case one got revoked). Anyway, the point is, states are not constitutionally required to recognize other states' drivers licenses, and it is arguable whether it is constitutional for the Federal government to require it except perhaps for interstate commercial drivers.