National Reciprocity

swinokur · Feb 22, 2011

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

therealcombat · Feb 22, 2011

This would be awesome! I really hope it passes. I want to do a cross country motorcycle ride this summer, but am severely limited on locations due to individual state's acceptance of my permit. :/

sharkey · Feb 22, 2011

Thanks. I was actually looking for this bill last night but could only find the 2005-2009 versions. I hope it finally passes. I do wonder how many states will pull their licenses though. (I'm looking at you Cali and NY).

Grapeshot · Feb 22, 2011

I would not look to see this bill go anywhere - least of all through the senate.

Surprising to some perhaps, but I do not favor federally mandated national reciprocity any more than I would favor a national carry permit. First objection is that what the government gives, they can take away.

Occasionally someone will compare this thinking with driving license which are generally accepted in most states. (a) This has been accomplished by agreement between the states, NOT via federal intervention.

If congress wants to accomplish a major good thing for RKBA, they could step above the recent SCOTUS decisions and structure a law clarfiynig and codifying that all states SHALL develope/adopt laws whereby honest citizens may own, posses and carry guns for their personal defense and the defense of others within their state. Reciprocity will follow on the heels of this.

footnote a - Massachusetts as of 2009 allowed out-of-state driving permits except those issued by Montana or Washington State

Can a Driving Permit Be Used in Other States? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5798796_can-permit-used-other-states_.html#ixzz1EjyuMDIp

SouthernBoy · Feb 22, 2011

Grapeshot said:
Surprising to some perhaps, but I do not favor federally mandated national reciprocity any more than I would favor a national carry permit. First objection is that what the government gives, they can take away.

Ditto. The last thing I would want to see is the federal government sticking its unwelcome nose in more places where it doesn't belong. I'm like the Founders with these things; I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

eye95 · Feb 22, 2011

I am against this bill. Unequivocally.

It is one more usurpation of State authority by the feds. Yes, the singular outcome of being able to carry everywhere once licensed by your home State is a positive. The side-effect is intolerable: that the feds have the power to override any State law on guns. The next time they usurp a State gun law, the outcome might be not-so-positive.

No. This law is NOT good.

tcmech · Feb 22, 2011

Grapeshot said:
I would not look to see this bill go anywhere - least of all through the senate.

Surprising to some perhaps, but I do not favor federally mandated national reciprocity any more than I would favor a national carry permit. First objection is that what the government gives, they can take away.

Occasionally someone will compare this thinking with driving license which are generally accepted in most states. (a) This has been accomplished by agreement between the states, NOT via federal intervention.

If congress wants to accomplish a major good thing for RKBA, they could step above the recent SCOTUS decisions and structure a law clarfiynig and codifying that all states SHALL develope/adopt laws whereby honest citizens may own, posses and carry guns for their personal defense and the defense of others within their state. Reciprocity will follow on the heels of this.

footnote a - Massachusetts as of 2009 allowed out-of-state driving permits except those issued by Montana or Washington State

Can a Driving Permit Be Used in Other States? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5798796_can-permit-used-other-states_.html#ixzz1EjyuMDIp

I tend to agree with Grapeshot here that this will probably go nowhere. I also agree that there should be no federally mandated reciprocity. I do believe though that if marriage license's and drivers license's are recognized in all 50 states irregardless of the state in which they are issued then my Virginia CHP should also be recognized and honored in all fifty states. If this were a license dealing with interstate commerce I would feel differently, but since this is a personal and not a business issue I see no difference.

I also believe that as a citizen of the United States of America I should be able to carry any weapon that I legally posses, (by this I do not mean any weapon that the government allows me to own, but any weapon that I can afford to purchase), in any manner that I can safely do so, without benefit of government permission.

Needless to say I don't think that the majority of the elected representatives in our great country share my belief.

rotorhead · Feb 22, 2011

I have to add my "nay" as well. We can't sit here and complain about federal encroachment on some issues and be for it on others.

This is best left to individual states to work out.

The only argument I can see for the "yea" side is that the 2nd amendment to the US constitution does specifically mention the right to keep and bear arms, which could place it the issue in federal jurisdiction. However, I don't think the 2nd Amdmt give the feds control over guns. In fact, it does just the opposite and takes control of guns OUT of federal control, imo.

Ref: "...shall not be infringed"

Grapeshot · Feb 22, 2011

Grapeshot said:
footnote a - Massachusetts as of 2009 allowed out-of-state driving permits except those issued by Montana or Washington State

Can a Driving Permit Be Used in Other States? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5798796_can-permit-used-other-states_.html#ixzz1EjyuMDIp

tcmech said:
I do believe though that if marriage license's and drivers license's are recognized in all 50 states irregardless of the state in which they are issued then my Virginia CHP should also be recognized and honored in all fifty states. If this were a license dealing with interstate commerce I would feel differently, but since this is a personal and not a business issue I see no difference.

Contrary to popular belief, driving licenses from all states are NOT accepted in all 50 states - see bolded points above. I think NY treats out of state DLs the same as they treat their learners permit - see my cite above.

Further, not all states recognize the marriage licenses of all states 100% - think same sex marriage which is legal some places and not others.

The principle difference is that the RKBA is an affirmed right, whereas driving and marriage would seem to be more state sanctioned.

tcmech · Feb 22, 2011

Grapeshot said:
Contrary to popular belief, driving licenses from all states are NOT accepted in all 50 states - see bolded points above. I think NY treats out of state DLs the same as they treat their learners permit - see my cite above.

Further, not all states recognize the marriage licenses of all states 100% - think same sex marriage which is legal some places and not others.

The principle difference is that the RKBA is an affirmed right, whereas driving and marriage would seem to be more state sanctioned.

My understanding may be skewed here but drivers permit to me means learner's permit, license means I don't need adult supervision. I do believe that the drivers permit you are talking about is a learners permit.

I understand the whole same sex marriage thing and that it is not recognized in many places, but the liberals who propagate it on us all seem to come from places that do not recognize my right to defend myself. It may be small consolation that I don't recognize the same sex marriage.

Grapeshot · Feb 22, 2011

tcmech said:
My understanding may be skewed here but drivers permit to me means learner's permit, license means I don't need adult supervision. I do believe that the drivers permit you are talking about is a learners permit.

I understand the whole same sex marriage thing and that it is not recognized in many places, but the liberals who propagate it on us all seem to come from places that do not recognize my right to defend myself. It may be small consolation that I don't recognize the same sex marriage.

You may well be right. I tend to use driving license and driving permit interchangeably; when I mean "learner's" permit, I add the word "learner's." That may not fit the test of legalize, but it works for me ........... normally. :uhoh:

trooper46 · Feb 22, 2011

I support this law and respectfully disagree with the others.

It is the role of the federal government to support and defend the constitution, as all politicians taken an oath to do so.

Many of the states have already proven that they cannot be trusted to obey the constitution's second amendment. When that happens, it is the job of the federal government to force states to recognize a citizen's constitutional right.

Example: Sending in the 101 airborne division to end segregation in the south, civil rights act etc.

States do have rights. Violating the constitutional rights of American citizens is not one of them. And quite frankly, the role of states rights in the constitution has been highly exaggerated in recent debate. If anything, the constitution was intended to strengthen the power of the federal government over state sovereignty.

Why would I say this? Because it's birth originates from the failure of the articles of confederation. It was realized by the founders that a collective of sovereign states was unpractical and un-american. Just as it is unpractical that I can be legally carrying in Indiana, walk one foot across the state line to Illinois and be committing a felony.

I am not a Kentuckyian, I am an American, as we all should consider ourselves. With that in mind, all states should have to obey the constitution and it is the natural role of the federal government to ensure that.

I would also add that the constitution is nothing more than a wrinkled old piece of paper IF it does not have an enforcer such as the federal government to ensure states don't violate it, just as they violated it with segregation.

eye95 · Feb 22, 2011

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.

PT111 · Feb 23, 2011

Grapeshot said:
You may well be right. I tend to use driving license and driving permit interchangeably; when I mean "learner's" permit, I add the word "learner's." That may not fit the test of legalize, but it works for me ........... normally. :uhoh:

You were correct in that states choose to accept the license whether it is a learners permit or whatever from other states. The Feds do establish such things as the shape and size of road signs or some highway markings but only to the point that they can withhold federal funds if a state does not go along. I remember when the whole deal about the pictures on signs started due to people with DL not being able to read or not being able to read English. Before then signs such as Yield and School Crossing had words on them rather than some picture that you now have to look very closely to see what it is and remember all the details.

But being able to use your DL across coutry is actually an agreement that all states came up with and not a federal edict. I am not sure that Marriages will ever be universal just like divorce and wills will never be. Those can get very messy across state lines.

eye95 · Feb 23, 2011

Doesn't the "full faith and credit" clause require that other States accept DLs from out of State--as long as the issuance of that license by one State and the acceptance of it by another cause a violation of the law in the other State?

As I understand it, this is how States that do not recognize homosexual marriage can ignore out-of-State homosexual marriages. They must recognize out-of-State marriages that would otherwise be in compliance the their laws, but not those that violate it.

I guess for DLs, the analog would be a State that does not allow 14-year-olds to get licenses not honoring the license of a 14-year-old from another State.

sultan62 · Feb 23, 2011

trooper46 said:
I support this law and respectfully disagree with the others.

It is the role of the federal government to support and defend the constitution, as all politicians taken an oath to do so.

Many of the states have already proven that they cannot be trusted to obey the constitution's second amendment. When that happens, it is the job of the federal government to force states to recognize a citizen's constitutional right.

Example: Sending in the 101 airborne division to end segregation in the south, civil rights act etc.

States do have rights. Violating the constitutional rights of American citizens is not one of them. And quite frankly, the role of states rights in the constitution has been highly exaggerated in recent debate. If anything, the constitution was intended to strengthen the power of the federal government over state sovereignty.

Why would I say this? Because it's birth originates from the failure of the articles of confederation. It was realized by the founders that a collective of sovereign states was unpractical and un-american. Just as it is unpractical that I can be legally carrying in Indiana, walk one foot across the state line to Illinois and be committing a felony.

I am not a Kentuckyian, I am an American, as we all should consider ourselves. With that in mind, all states should have to obey the constitution and it is the natural role of the federal government to ensure that.

I would also add that the constitution is nothing more than a wrinkled old piece of paper IF it does not have an enforcer such as the federal government to ensure states don't violate it, just as they violated it with segregation.

I've thought about your points here, and must disagree. The federal government has already given a provision acknowledging RKBA in the 2nd Amendment. Both the federal government and most state governments have infringed on that right, but the fact is, we already have the legislation. We now need the judicial branch (Supreme Court) to uphold it.

Huck · Feb 23, 2011

eye95 said:
I am against this bill. Unequivocally.

It is one more usurpation of State authority by the feds. Yes, the singular outcome of being able to carry everywhere once licensed by your home State is a positive. The side-effect is intolerable: that the feds have the power to override any State law on guns. The next time they usurp a State gun law, the outcome might be not-so-positive.

No. This law is NOT good.

My thoughts too!

sudden valley gunner · Feb 23, 2011

As much as I like a universally acknowledgement of the 2A, I have to agree, the feds are acquiring more unconstitutional power each passing year.

This could be used as a tool like the South Dakota law though to show others who are the modern day "federalist" how it is bad in all areas, to be doing this.

This doesn't mean that if it passes I won't take advantage of it though. I don't wont to be without my gun when I to what I consider my second home Hawaii.

SouthernBoy · Feb 23, 2011

trooper46 said:
Example: Sending in the 101 airborne division to end segregation in the south, civil rights act etc.

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.

swinokur · Feb 23, 2011

wasn't the National Guard federalized to enforce desegregation and not the regular army?

National Reciprocity

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member