National Reciprocity

SouthernBoy said:

This is illegal. The federal government cannot use United States military for policing actions. This is blatantly a violation of the law and as such, no state is under obligation to support or allow this.

I also disagree with most everything else you wrote. The states were meant to have power over and above that of the federal government, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

The method of enforcement is a moot point. The example was meant to demonstrate the role of federal government as an enforcer of the constitution. Had the president sent Federal Marshals to Little Rock, it would not have violated the Posse Comitatus Act (the law you refering to by claiming it was illegal). The method may have been illegal, however the act of enforcing the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution was not.


As for the idea of states having "power over and above that of the federal government". I suggest you expand your examination of the constitution beyond the 2nd amendment and that of what might be found on a Tea Party sign. There is nothing in the constitution that places the states "over the federal government". Further, the constituition was created following the failure of the articles of confederation. The framers were concerned with preserving state rights, but they were also well aware of the dangers of "state sovreignty" without some type of oversite.

I agree that is up to the supreme court to fully define and secure the 2nd amendment as the individual right to carry. But without an enforcer the constitution is meaningless. As a rather arrogant President Jackson once said of a supreme court justice's decision "Let him enforce it".

When states fail to obey the constitution, it falls upon the feds to bring them in line. Without enforcement, the bill of rights is pure fantasy

Amendment 10 of the US Constitution

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.

Click to expand...

Under this same thought that unless it is declared illegal then it is legal. This is the reason that OC is legal in many states. There is no arguent from anyone that I know of about the Fed's right to enforce the Constitution in the individual States but the argument in the Fed's right to enfoce that which is not in the Constitution. I do not think that it is within the right of the Fed's to tell the states how to administer laws such as OC or CC as there is nothing in the Constitution covering the individual administation rathe it just says that we have a right to bear arms. I think that the SCOTUS has stated that we have that right and it applies to the states but the idea of requiring National Reciprocity is beyond that ruling.

As I understand and do not have a cite nor am I saying that it is fact but the Canadian Constitution has the reverse of 10A where the Providences and therefore the people are only granted the powers specifically stated in the Constitution. If this were the case in the US then to OC would require a law stating that it was legal.

Yes the Feds can enforce the constitution in any state but only the Constitution and nothing else. If a state says you do not have to wear clothes then there is nothing in the Constitution requiring it and the Feds have no control over it, or at least should not.

swinokur said:

If this passes it will have huge impact on OC after the states see that the carrying of weapons does not result in blood in the streets. While I live in MD and cannot carry on my nonresident VA permit,if this bill passes anyone who has a permit from their home state can carry in ANY of the 50 states, regardless of the state's issuance laws for their own residents. I think this will have good implications for OC as well.

fingers crossed

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/02/hr-822-concealed-carry-reciprocity-bill.html

Click to expand...

This is a good idea, and a long time coming. With some pressure applied this bill will easily make it through the house, and it is "NRA-ILA" palatable - meaning it furthers the "P4P" structure they like.

The fed already has power over state gun laws pursuant to the Supremacy clause. Example - perfectly legal to have a machine gun in VA, so long as it's registered within 24 hours of delivery. Feds however require you to have a tax stamp ( or you go to prison ).

While a solid RKBA court decision would be ideal, the reality is that both Heller and McDonald were very weak rulings constitutionally. New Jersey has already put forth a brief that essentially states RKBA -only- applies in the home, and this was coming from the moment the Heller ruling was handed down. "Sensitive places" is the new rallying cry for police state enthusiasts. Even if we were to get a court case to the supreme court, the outcome is most assuredly not certain based on the very tepid wording in both Heller and McDonald. On top of this, courts do everything they can to avoid ruling on constitutional issues.

Here's a question that everyone ought to be asking themselves - What if we lose the inevitable RKBA case at USSC?

There is a great philosophical divide between gun owners generally and any elected official & bureaucrat. They serve a master that is essentially a life form unto itself and it does not want to give up power, authority or control and they will fight with lethal force to enforce their will. We have a more principally rooted belief - the Constitution means what it says, should be enforced that way, government should be small and efficient.

It's safe to say that we and government do not see eye to eye. They will fight tooth and nail to see that RKBA outside the home is suppressed and in the event they lose, very strictly controlled. The latter is their fall back position.

We have no fallback position. If we go to a federal court with a bear arms case (not bare arms) and lose, we will be set back years, if not decades. Requiring states to honor out of state carry permits would be a sound fall back position.

PT111 said:

Amendment 10 of the US Constitution

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.

Click to expand...

Under this same thought that unless it is declared illegal then it is legal.

Click to expand...

Not so fast. Let's take a closer look, from the viewpoint of logical/semantic analysis:


Put another way, all powers reside with the State or the People except those delegated to the Fed or prohibited from being reserved to the State.

People forget that each State was, and remains a sovereign entity. Think "State = Country" and you'll see Virginia carried the same weight of sovereignty as Belgium, or France. The U.S. was one of the first supercountries, where individual entities loosely associated themselves for a greater purpose. Other supercountries include the U.S.S.R and the E.U.

Furthermore, put still yet another way, each State reserves the right and the authority to tell Uncle Sam to take a hike if Uncle Sam violates the Constitutional limits on its power, which is what happened with the Obamacare smackdown.

This is the reason that OC is legal in many states. There is no arguent from anyone that I know of about the Fed's right to enforce the Constitution in the individual States but the argument in the Fed's right to enfoce that which is not in the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the balance of power between the States and the Fed:

1. The States can tell Uncle Sam to take a hike when Uncle Sam oversteps their Constitutional authority.

Meanwhile...

2. Uncle Sam can also enforce State compliance withing the limits of Constitutional authority delegated to Uncle Sam.

When they disagree, they take it to court, just as they did when 30+ states sued the Fed over Obamacare.

I do not think that it is within the right of the Fed's to tell the states how to administer laws such as OC or CC as there is nothing in the Constitution covering the individual administation rathe it just says that we have a right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

I think you are correct, on the surface of it.

I think that the SCOTUS has stated that we have that right and it applies to the states but the idea of requiring National Reciprocity is beyond that ruling.

Click to expand...

Not quite. When you scratch the surface, you discover that the Constitution grants the United States (the Fed) the right to regulate Interstate Commerce:


If you'll check with the proposed legislation, it is under this clause by which the Fed can establish a basis for national reciprocity, and this clause is cited in the list of justifications for the proposed legislation.

Yes the Feds can enforce the constitution in any state but only the Constitution and nothing else.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct - and that's precisely what they're doing, both within the limits of their authority to do so, as well as without exceeding those limits. If you'll read the wording carefully, the only thing the bill does is require states which have CC permits (47) to respect the CC permits of other states as if they'd been issued from within that state. It does not require the states to change their own laws with respect to CC rights, limitations, and restrictions. Rather, it requires the permittee to know and respect the CC laws of whatever state in which they're carrying.

Personally, I think it's a brilliant stroke of legal genius.

Now, whether or not it's desirable or not is another matter altogether. I would prefer both the fed and the states to wake up and realize when the Founding fathers said "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they were talking about open carry, not concealed carry. Back in those days, only those up to skullduggery and thieves concealed a weapon. These days, CC, OC, whatever - it shouldn't matter.

ETA: More info.

That kind of convoluted logic is what makes the federal government think it can do anything, because, applying that logic, they can!

If one is against the use that kind of logic to justify nationalizing health care, then consistency dictates that he not advocate such contortions to justify something else, even if it benefits him.

Each little twisting of the Constitution had a benefit, so folks didn't mind the subversion. Of course, folks had their own pet benefits, needing their own little twists. The net result of all of these benefits is pretzel, not a Constitution.

It is a shame when folks here advocate the pretzeling.

I'm not infallible, eye95, but I'm not twisted or convuluted, either. The Constitution simply is, and was written in plain English, at least plain for the late 1700s, for a reason. If you don't think it's plain, get a hold some of the legal documents from that era.

They wrote it in the simple language in which we find it because they wanted The People to understand it. Most of us can read it and understand it just fine. I attempted to walk you through the Constitutional justification behind the National Reciprocity bill. It's not hidden, but it is subtle. If you can't follow the legal justification, all I can do is wish you good luck in your future studies.

trooper46 said:

The method of enforcement is a moot point. The example was meant to demonstrate the role of federal government as an enforcer of the constitution. Had the president sent Federal Marshals to Little Rock, it would not have violated the Posse Comitatus Act (the law you refering to by claiming it was illegal). The method may have been illegal, however the act of enforcing the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution was not.


As for the idea of states having "power over and above that of the federal government". I suggest you expand your examination of the constitution beyond the 2nd amendment and that of what might be found on a Tea Party sign. There is nothing in the constitution that places the states "over the federal government". Further, the constituition was created following the failure of the articles of confederation. The framers were concerned with preserving state rights, but they were also well aware of the dangers of "state sovreignty" without some type of oversite.

I agree that is up to the supreme court to fully define and secure the 2nd amendment as the individual right to carry. But without an enforcer the constitution is meaningless. As a rather arrogant President Jackson once said of a supreme court justice's decision "Let him enforce it".

When states fail to obey the constitution, it falls upon the feds to bring them in line. Without enforcement, the bill of rights is pure fantasy

Click to expand...

Yes I am aware of which law prevents government from using the military for policing actions. As to most of the rest, let's just say we can agree to disagree.

In my opinion the Federal Government does not have the authority to invoke a national reciprocity law telling the states that they have to accept permits from other states. That is just my opinion and my opinion counts the same as everyone else's in the US except for nine people. :shocker: Just think about the fact that millions and millions of dollars are spent on getting certain people elected to various offices in this country every year and the final say so on everything actually lies with 9 people known as the SCOTUS who are appointed rather than elected. Congress can make any law they want to but the final determination of that law is up to those 9 people. Except for those nine everyone else's opinion technically counts the same. Scary isn't it. :banghead:

since9 said:

I'm not infallible, eye95, but I'm not twisted or convuluted, either. The Constitution simply is, and was written in plain English, at least plain for the late 1700s, for a reason. If you don't think it's plain, get a hold some of the legal documents from that era.

They wrote it in the simple language in which we find it because they wanted The People to understand it. Most of us can read it and understand it just fine. I attempted to walk you through the Constitutional justification behind the National Reciprocity bill. It's not hidden, but it is subtle. If you can't follow the legal justification, all I can do is wish you good luck in your future studies.

Click to expand...

And that simple language does not contain language that allows the Congress to force States to accept licenses from other States when the requirements for licensing (and what the license permits) varies so wildly from State to State. Not unless you pretzel what it says. We should leave that to those who'd rather we didn't have a Constitution in the first place, just a federal government that will do what they think needs doing.

Moving on.

I understand the point of view that alot of members have here on the bill. I agree that its a very slim chance it will pass. And I also agree with the fact that the government shouldn't be stepping in and telling the states what they should do, but this bill makes sense to me and I totally agree with it. And I believe that alot of gun owners in nj and ny would feel the same. The Problem is that the government allowed our states to become too powerful. In NJ and NY our state governments have basically taken away most of our rights to own guns and have virtually eliminated our right to carry unless you are an LEO. I am one of the very few people to hold a carry permit in NJ but it is restricted to "only while working" I agree with this bill in the fact that it will allow me to carry in all 50 states virtually unrestricted. I do also hold many non-resident permits but it does not help the fact that i can not carry while not working in my home state. I do agree that this is a matter that the states should be taking care of but states like NY and NJ will never change because they have grown to powerful and to corrupt. I think that the only way that these states will change is if the federal government steps in and puts them back in check. Even though the bill is unlikely to pass I hope that it will be a wake up call for these states to review there own gun laws.

Fisher2688 said:

...I also agree with the fact that the government shouldn't be stepping in and telling the states what they should do, but this bill [that forces reciprocity on the States] makes sense to me and I totally agree with it...

Click to expand...

That juxtaposition perfectly demonstrates how rights are eroded.

eye95 said:

That juxtaposition perfectly demonstrates how rights are eroded.

Click to expand...

yes but you also don't live in a state where you basically have no constitutional right to protect yourself at this point I'm suprised that NJ and NY have not yet created there own countries yet because they obviously abide by the rules that they create and don't care about there residents federal rights. In NJ and Ny it is no longer a right to bear arms its a privalege and at this point I'll take any help from the federal government to try and change that for my state. Its sad to see that it has come to this but thats just the way it is.

Fisher2688 said:

I understand the point of view that alot of members have here on the bill. I agree that its a very slim chance it will pass. And I also agree with the fact that the government shouldn't be stepping in and telling the states what they should do, but this bill makes sense to me and I totally agree with it. And I believe that alot of gun owners in nj and ny would feel the same. The Problem is that the government allowed our states to become too powerful. In NJ and NY our state governments have basically taken away most of our rights to own guns and have virtually eliminated our right to carry unless you are an LEO. I am one of the very few people to hold a carry permit in NJ but it is restricted to "only while working" I agree with this bill in the fact that it will allow me to carry in all 50 states virtually unrestricted. I do also hold many non-resident permits but it does not help the fact that i can not carry while not working in my home state. I do agree that this is a matter that the states should be taking care of but states like NY and NJ will never change because they have grown to powerful and to corrupt. I think that the only way that these states will change is if the federal government steps in and puts them back in check. Even though the bill is unlikely to pass I hope that it will be a wake up call for these states to review there own gun laws.

Click to expand...

Fisher2688 said:

yes but you also don't live in a state where you basically have no constitutional right to protect yourself at this point I'm suprised that NJ and NY have not yet created there own countries yet because they obviously abide by the rules that they create and don't care about there residents federal rights. In NJ and Ny it is no longer a right to bear arms its a privalege and at this point I'll take any help from the federal government to try and change that for my state. Its sad to see that it has come to this but thats just the way it is.

Click to expand...

This needs to be corrected/solved with existing procedures (votes and the courts) not be giving the federal govt. more control. Be careful with whom you sleep, it will come back to haunt you. Think you are selling your soul to the devil.

No short term gain is worth a long term loss. Correcting a problem with a problem is not a good solution.

You do realize that if this bill were to pass that non-residents of these two states would have more of a privilege within your borders than you will have, right? Clean up your own bedroom - don't ask others to do it for you at their expense.

Permits? We don't need any stinking permits!

Besides, we have the right to bear arms which shall not be infringed!

I'm pretty sure this bill has been amended. The first time I read the text I did not see

‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

Click to expand...

which I like and I swear it had you had to have an unrestricted license in your state meaning Fisher would have been SOL on his "work" permit but that's not what it says now.

What I truly want is national constitutional carry enforced by the courts with no permits allowed or required at all. I see this bill as the first stepping stone to that.

If it did manage to pass I wonder if certain states would argue over someone's residency. Since I live in AZ I could carry concealed in any state in this nation with no permit required but if I took a temp job in another state they may claim me to be a resident of that state and not exempt from their permit requirement.

eye95 said:

And one of the concepts in the Constitution is States' Rights.

Some States require a background check to get a license. Others do not. Forcing a State to accept the license from a State that has lesser requirements for issuance undermines that State's sovereignty.

I don't think that the Framers ever intended for the federal government to be the arbiter of what the Constitution means as it relates to State sovereignty. That is good. In a relationship where the feds pass on State laws, that places the federal government over the State government. The Framers wisely intended the reverse.

Click to expand...

I agree with the precept that you put forth Eye95. I do consider that the States should have the right to maintain total sovereignty. I do however believe that it is the guaranteed right of each sovereign citizen to lawfully carry a firearm in any manner anywhere in the United States. It's a fine line between what is meant in the 2nd Amendment and the 9th and 10th. Just me sayin it, but I think the wording of the 9th "...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And the 10th "The powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.
If there needs to be a Declaration of the right to reciprocity it aught to come as an amendment BY THE PEOPLE. The possibility of this is improbable in these times? But,,we've bigger fish to fry I fear.

Help a brutha out already

Underneath all of this there is also the right to self defense. HR822 will help advance the ability of citizens to protect themselves while visiting or transiting states which may not have enacted enlightened, common sense reciprocity laws or require non-resident permits.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003

This bill stands as much chance of passing as people are willing to fight for it. If you sit here on OCDO and proclaim it has little chance of passing it's certainly not helping it pass now is it?

Send a message to your congressman instead of complaining about what it doesn't do for you personally and recognize that it will help many of us. When the bill comes around that doesn't necessarily help the 'many of us' HR822 helps but helps you personally, we will be happy to return the favor. This division amongst gun owners is what the antis feed on. We don't all have to agree with each other all the time, but we should at least be willing to help each other out when the need arises.

I sent my congressman correspondence, ILA makes it easy-peasey!

Even if your congressman is a die hard anti, it doesn't mean they won't help. I had several people tell me that Tom Davis "won't do anything to help get guns legal in National Parks". A couple elected officials, various gun rights folks, etc. Yet it was Davis's office that got meetings with DOI, followed by movement on the petitions (both) which eventually resulted in the parks petition being approved; All before Brady suit nonsense & subsequent Coburn amendment.

I sent an email to my Rep Chris Van Hollen. No bigger anti exists on the planet but to do nothing is worse when sending an email will NEVER hurt. It is as easy as following the above link.

We need to stick together on every front that will return our constitutional right to us. No one thought the last one would pass but it only lost by 2 votes. Many blue dog Democrats know they are being closely watched and the only way they will be reelected is to move to the center.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and think this is hopeless. If you don't help, don't crow when it fails but do us a favor and don't carry if it passes.

Hypocrisy is not a trait many of we freedom lovers like. The libs are proof of this every day.

KansasMustang said:

I agree with the precept that you put forth Eye95. I do consider that the States should have the right to maintain total sovereignty. I do however believe that it is the guaranteed right of each sovereign citizen to lawfully carry a firearm in any manner anywhere in the United States. It's a fine line between what is meant in the 2nd Amendment and the 9th and 10th. Just me sayin it, but I think the wording of the 9th "...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And the 10th "The powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.
If there needs to be a Declaration of the right to reciprocity it aught to come as an amendment BY THE PEOPLE. The possibility of this is improbable in these times? But,,we've bigger fish to fry I fear.

Click to expand...

As long as each State makes a provision for unlicensed carry by all mentally competent, law-abiding adult citizens, then I don't care about any quirks in the law that would require reciprocity of licenses. If a State does not allow any form of unlicensed carry, then THAT is the problem, not reciprocity. Enforced national reciprocity will not fix the problem of requiring a license to carry or of prohibiting carry.

swinokur said:

I sent an email to my Rep Chris Van Hollen. No bigger anti exists on the planet but to do nothing is worse when sending an email will NEVER hurt. It is as easy as following the above link.

We need to stick together on every front that will return our constitutional right to us. No one thought the last one would pass but it only lost by 2 votes. Many blue dog Democrats know they are being closely watched and the only way they will be reelected is to move to the center.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and think this is hopeless. If you don't help, don't crow when it fails but do us a favor and don't carry if it passes.

Hypocrisy is not a trait many of we freedom lovers like. The libs are proof of this every day.

Click to expand...

What have we become when we think that forcing one State to honor a license from another is Liberty! Liberty is carrying without a license.

This bill will not advance Liberty one iota. It will entrench the feds as sovereign over the States. That injures Liberty.

True love of Liberty demands that we spit on this bill.