In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Why CCW Reciprocity is a Bad Idea
Bruzilla
Member Posts: 12 ✭✭
I keep hearing from people who are demanding 50-state reciprocity for concealed carry permits, and they don't see to get that this would be the worst idea ever. Right now, the states have total control of their permits. The Federal government has zero.
The only way for 50-state reciprocity to become a reality would be for the Federal government to pass a law requiring the states to enable that. The same resolution was used to require reciprocity of drivers licenses, marriage licenses, etc. This is all great and wonderful for folks who can now get their permits recognized by all states.
But here's the downside. That law that requires reciprocity also sets a new legal precedent that gives the Federal government oversight authority over the states when it comes to permits. That specific language won't be in the bill, but it doesn't have to be. If a law allows the Feds to direct states to recognize permits, that same authority can be used to justify the Feds ordering whatever they like IRT permits.
Folks should look at the recent lawsuits made by 13 states against the Feds over the Real ID Act. Real ID mandated states adopt a standard set of procedures for issuing drivers licenses and IDs, and create documents that met a new Federal standard. The states filed suits claiming these documents were regulated by the states and the Feds had no authority to compel them to do anything. Every single one of those lawsuits failed because the laws requiring reciprocity set the precedent that the Feds can regulate driver's license and IDs.
So if you don't like that your permit isn't usable in the next state, think about how much more you won't like losing your permit because some new Federal regulation prohibits you from having it.
The only way for 50-state reciprocity to become a reality would be for the Federal government to pass a law requiring the states to enable that. The same resolution was used to require reciprocity of drivers licenses, marriage licenses, etc. This is all great and wonderful for folks who can now get their permits recognized by all states.
But here's the downside. That law that requires reciprocity also sets a new legal precedent that gives the Federal government oversight authority over the states when it comes to permits. That specific language won't be in the bill, but it doesn't have to be. If a law allows the Feds to direct states to recognize permits, that same authority can be used to justify the Feds ordering whatever they like IRT permits.
Folks should look at the recent lawsuits made by 13 states against the Feds over the Real ID Act. Real ID mandated states adopt a standard set of procedures for issuing drivers licenses and IDs, and create documents that met a new Federal standard. The states filed suits claiming these documents were regulated by the states and the Feds had no authority to compel them to do anything. Every single one of those lawsuits failed because the laws requiring reciprocity set the precedent that the Feds can regulate driver's license and IDs.
So if you don't like that your permit isn't usable in the next state, think about how much more you won't like losing your permit because some new Federal regulation prohibits you from having it.
Comments
The Tenth Amendment?s simple language??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??emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government.
Can any state reject a happy marriage certificate legally? NO.
Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution States:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Many forget the second sentence in this section, as it obviously allows Congress a wide latitude in addressing such issues, resulting in the inevitable minimum standards for CCW issue based not upon one state, but the calls for restrictions from any of the 50.
Brad Steele
However i also predict that if it passes the states will enact laws to arrest those people anyways. Afterall; marijuana is illegal [just like with immigration safe havens] to the feds; but some states said screw you to them and passed the law anyways.
So; my prediction is that even if it passes with Trump signing it into law; the individual states that dont like it will either make it very restrictive, or outright outlaw it anyways.
A lot of talk before HR 218. Pelosi even said that drunken cops would be shooting up the country.
The Fed standards are so low that it is almost impossible not to qualify, and it can be done long distance.
So far I have not heard any stories that locals have bothered retired law enforcement. Rumor has it the US attorney will make an example of the first local that does.
The US code could be as simple as tying CCW permits to acceptance of drivers licenses. As long as they don't mess with the rules of those issuing the permits.
The devil would be in the details.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
Many of us have been making this argument for years, Bruzilla.
Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution States:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Many forget the second sentence in this section, as it obviously allows Congress a wide latitude in addressing such issues, resulting in the inevitable minimum standards for CCW issue based not upon one state, but the calls for restrictions from any of the 50.
Any power given to the states can be taken away by The Congress or The Supreme Court. The Executive Branch not so much except in starting undeclared wars. By the time we have attacked a adversary then turning back is well to late.
Now Congress can also delegate any authority it has been given to do under The Constitution also. Like The Federal Reserve.
A Federal right to bear arms in any state on your person has long been dead especially in Washington D.C. There will never be an universal gun license for the average citizen to carry in all 50 states. Only a Federal officer has that right including even D.C.
But who knows maybe one day we will have a United Nation legislators along with INTERPOL with D.C. The Vatican,The City of London being exempt. But I doubt the English Crown would be happy.
Have you got the picture yet Barzillia?
serf
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
The different rules in different states are certainly something to pay attention to as hopefully all CC and LTC folks are aware.
Some rules are not intuitive. Texas is pretty straightforward, and common sense says even if they are not following the 30.06 and 30.07 signage exactly if the business does not want you carrying on premises, then don't.
But here is an oddball for you. Don't rely on this and verify yourself if it matters, but the way I read California Concealed Carry rules: a business cannot prohibit you from carrying concealed (if you have a CC permit) by posting signs, and you are not in violation of the law if you ignore the signage, but the business can require you to leave if they discover you are carrying. Figure that one out ??
I believe you are right on to tread carefully here. That said I certainly hope NRA is on top of all the potential ramifications.
The different rules in different states are certainly something to pay attention to as hopefully all CC and LTC folks are aware.
Some rules are not intuitive. Texas is pretty straightforward, and common sense says even if they are not following the 30.06 and 30.07 signage exactly if the business does not want you carrying on premises, then don't.
But here is an oddball for you. Don't rely on this and verify yourself if it matters, but the way I read California Concealed Carry rules: a business cannot prohibit you from carrying concealed (if you have a CC permit) by posting signs, and you are not in violation of the law if you ignore the signage, but the business can require you to leave if they discover you are carrying. Figure that one out ??
It's actually very simple and is rooted in property rights. You are not breaking a state law by entering the business armed, but when asked to leave, you comply with the wishes of the property owner. If you do not comply, you are then trespassing.
Brad Steele
Should not be any permits at all.
Constitutional carry is the best way to do this....of course if the trend continues full reciprocity would continue with no federal action needed if the state legislatures got their act together.
Who are you "hearing from" that are "demanding" anything?
Your syntax and comma splices lead me to believe that you are a bot or are being paid in rubles.
You're not the only one being paid in rubles on GBGD. So don't let that disencourage you none.
But I'd advise a quick visit back to your handlers for a refresher in tense, plurals, and common syntax.
I choose to do the same.
"we don't need no stinking badges"
FTL from now on.