NRA Annoucement/Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017....wording

[HankB]

If and when it passes, there is still the problem of enforcement. I would suspect that many anti-gun states and/or localities like New York, New Jersey, California (At least specific cities), Illinois (Chicago), may well refuse to recognize it. There are states that still refuse to recognize the Federal transportation of weapons through their states.. . .

This can be fixed quite easily - the bill should establish criminal penalties for both agencies and individual officers who fail to comply with and recognize the law and who attempt to penalize people who are legally licensed and traveling under this law.via arrest, fine, prosecution, seizure or detention.

Probably won't happen - legislators seem to have a knee-jerk aversion to holding bureaucrats and LEOs personally accountable for their misdeeds.

 

[entropy]

Question 1. Would a state like Mass, NJ or MD where carry is virtually prohibited be tempted to scrap the entire CCW laws to deny out of staters from visiting? I read it as no permits for the state being visited, no honoring of outside permits.

They might be tempted, but would probably not, as most permits that are issued in such states are the result of cronyism, and Senator Fluffnstuff's friends would be displeased to find their "privilege" of carrying rescinded, and some of Senator Fluffnstuff's friends rely on carrying them as a reminder of what happens to those who displease them.

 

[deadin]

"National Reciprocity" looks like just another case of the Feds trampling on States Rights. How many more "little bites" before we can just do away with State governments and run everything from D.C.??

 

[Frank Ettin]

Perhaps there is another approach, one more direct and which leaves fewer questions in it's wake than does the aforementioned national reciprocity act:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443143/gun-rights-reciprocity-constitution

Actually, that approach leaves a leaves a number of open questions in its wake.

While Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969), the case referenced in the article, recognizes a right to travel and struck down several laws seen as burdening that right, it did so in a narrow context. The case concerns persons who moved their residence to another State, sought to apply for welfare benefits in their new States of residence but were stymied by state laws requiring certain minimum periods of residency before becoming eligible to thus apply.

So Shapiro is distinguishable from the usual LTC (license to carry a gun) reciprocity cases in that (1) Shapiro involves a change of residence rather than transient travel and temporary presence; and (2) Shapiro involves applying for a benefit granted by the new State of residence under the laws of the new State of residence rather than the recognition by a State in which one is temporarily present of an authorization (LTC) granted by a different State.

The LTC reciprocity issue is more similar to state licence issues in general. A license to marry (as opposed to the status of being married) issued by State A is not recognized to authorize a couple to solemnize and thus enter into a marriage in State B. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), didn't change that. Obergefell simply requires that a State issue a marriage license to a same sex couple on the same terms that State issues marriage licenses to mixed sex couples.

In general licenses issued by a State to do something (like practice a professional or engage in a trade) are not recognized by another State to authorize doing that thing. An common exception is the driver's license; and the driver's license issued by a State is generally recognized by other State -- not because it's legally required, but rather because the States have agreed to do so.

Similarly some States recognize other sorts of licenses voluntarily or under certain circumstances. For example, a court in one State may grant a lawyer licensed in another State temporary and limited authority to practice for the purposes of representation of a particular client in a particular matter. And of course some States have, either unilaterally or by agreement with another State, decided to recognize a LTC issued by another State.

The right to travel has some attractions as a basis upon with to argue for broader reciprocity of LTCs. But so far, as far as I know that approach in Second Amendment cases has not worked out too well in the Circuit Courts. I think we'll need both a very well set up case and a significantly reconstituted Supreme Court to have a reasonable likelihood of a sweeping application of Shapiro to LTCs.

 

[Old Dog]

I am becoming increasingly skeptical of efforts toward true national reciprocity. Having experienced first-hand the difficulties with the administration of LEOSA -- not the actual recognition by local street cops, rather the incompetence or unwillingness on the part of local administrators to make this whole process easier for especially retired law enforcement -- I have little confidence that the states could work this out efficiently under a federal mandate. What I mean is, it's screwed up for the people the government issued guns to, how's it going to work when large pockets of the government don't want the non-LE citizens to carry guns?

 

[AlexanderA]

NFA reform is more important than national carry reciprocity. That's both because of the substance, and the legislative outlook. National carry reciprocity is DOA because of the Senate filibuster rules, while NFA reform can go through with just 51 votes under "budget reconciliation." Just my humble opinion.

I have to say that national carry reciprocity increasingly looks like one of those issues that can stay on the table forever, without actually going anywhere. This is great for lobbying organizations' fundraising, but not much else.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

The larger issue here is the constitutionality of the infringement of any right, much less a natural right. The right to travel is well settled in U.S. law*. Following D.C. v Heller, the same can now be said for keeping and bearing of arms, even though it may take mountains of lawsuits in resistant states to actually get there. Reciprocity requires licensing and permitting schemes on the part of the states, virtually none of which can withstand strict scrutiny. While the majority of Second Amendment cases since Heller seem to get wrapped in lesser forms of scrutiny, the few that have made it to a higher court are reversed and remanded based on simple and straightforward constitutional grounds.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/23/the-case-that-could-refine-the-2nd-amendment.html

http://conservativetribune.com/supreme-court-2nd-amendment/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...t-second-amendment-case-overrule-heller-2017/

*travelling: http://www.macquirelatory.com/Right To Travel.htm

 

[Frank Ettin]

The larger issue here is the constitutionality of the infringement of any right, much less a natural right....

Yes, and we're still a long way from answering that question with regard to the rights protected by the Second Amendment. We've come a lot further in defining the extent to which the rights protected by the First Amendment are permissibly subject to regulation, so it's clear that a constitutionally protected right can be regulated to a limited extent.

....Reciprocity requires licensing and permitting schemes on the part of the states, virtually none of which can withstand strict scrutiny....

While you believe that you have no legal authority to support that.

....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/23/the-case-that-could-refine-the-2nd-amendment.html

http://conservativetribune.com/supreme-court-2nd-amendment/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...t-second-amendment-case-overrule-heller-2017/

*travelling: http://www.macquirelatory.com/Right To Travel.htm

And you really need to learn to recognize the difference between good legal authority and radical, tendentious screeds.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Frank Ettin wrote: <<<recognize the difference between good legal authority and radical, tendentious screeds>>>

Well, I can, but apparently google can't.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank Ettin wrote: <<<recognize the difference between good legal authority and radical, tendentious screeds>>>

Well, I can, but apparently google can't.

Google is just a tool; and as with any tool, the quality of the results obtained depends on the knowledge and skills of the user. It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

 

[steve4102]

NFA reform is more important than national carry reciprocity. That's both because of the substance, and the legislative outlook. National carry reciprocity is DOA because of the Senate filibuster rules, while NFA reform can go through with just 51 votes under "budget reconciliation." Just my humble opinion.

I have to say that national carry reciprocity increasingly looks like one of those issues that can stay on the table forever, without actually going anywhere. This is great for lobbying organizations' fundraising, but not much else.

The Senate Nuclear Option ":rule" by Harry Reid allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of by a supermajority of 60 votes.

 

[AlexanderA]

The Senate Nuclear Option ":rule" by Harry Reid allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of by a supermajority of 60 votes.

That only applies to judicial (and other federal) appointments requiring confirmation, below the Supreme Court level. Senate rules can be changed only at the beginning of each session. Several key Republican players, including Sen. Orrin Hatch, have announced that they will not support changing the filibuster rules.

 

[MarkDido]

Agreed. What they write one year can be amended the next year.

Not claiming I have a solution to the problem, but on the other hand, I'm not liking this "solution" of a national reciprocity act, even though I'm an NRA "Lifer."

Sorry about that, folks.

Oh, for the good old days when a gun wasn't a GUH-UHN <EEK!> but just a gun.

Terry, 230RN

I agree.

If I don't like the gun laws in my state, I have the option to move.

A national law leave me no place to go.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Mark Dido wrote, "A national law leave me no place to go"

A national law might also, in the world of all things Trump, make leaving unnecessary.

"The Trumps should also support a congressional overturning of all state laws which throw up arbitrary, nuisance restrictions on gun ownership"

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443436/donald-trump-gun-rights-restrictions-repeal

 

[Styx]

Apparently I am in the minority here, but I don't want the federal government anywhere near any gun laws, including national reciprocity. (I understand they are involved in gun laws, but I don't WANT them involved, and I certainly don't want them more involved.) I just don't like the odds that they will improve the situation, or that, even if it is improved in the short term, that it won't come back to bite us later.
Think back 10 years. Would you have ever guessed we would be where we are right now?
After all, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." State/local control of laws is liberty, by my way of thinking, and the hassle of bad laws are an inconvenience, because you can always move (didn't say it was always easy to do so, but it is possible). If the local city council passes a stupid ordinance, it is a lot easier to get that corrected than an act of the federal government. And, even if you can't get it corrected, you only have to move a few miles. When the federal government messes up, what recourse do you REALLY have? Where will you move to then?

You're far from being the minority. Many other gun owners are right there with you. Thankfully, I just do not see National Reciprocity going anywhere.

 

[BamAlmighty]

People will have to be incredibly careful about entering states with restrictions on mag capacity and certain firearms.

You know the LEOs in those states will be extra pricks to out of staters with chls.

 

[Old Dog]

People will have to be incredibly careful about entering states with restrictions on mag capacity and certain firearms.

You know the LEOs in those states will be extra pricks to out of staters with chls.

"Extra pricks?" We know? Really? Alas, it was only a matter of time before someone posted a statement such as this. That's a pretty broad assumption there, as well as a pretty disparaging stereotype ... anyway, you all know what they say about "assuming."

 

[LiveLife]

NFA reform is more important than national carry reciprocity. That's both because of the substance, and the legislative outlook. National carry reciprocity is DOA because of the Senate filibuster rules, while NFA reform can go through with just 51 votes under "budget reconciliation." Just my humble opinion.

I would support push for federal "normal/large capacity" magazines and "silencer" for noise safety.

 

[CapnMac]

This can be fixed quite easily - the bill should establish criminal penalties for both agencies and individual officers who fail to comply with and recognize the law and who attempt to penalize people who are legally licensed and traveling under this law.via arrest, fine, prosecution, seizure or detention.

All that would change is the PC under which you are arrested. great care would be taken to make or assert any charge which would lead to a counter-charge.

Making more things illegal does not require more legal behaviour. This is an easy flaw in logic to fall into.

Making laws that allow arresting bad actors while disinclining arrest of good actors is very complicated. Which is rather why, to the layic (myself included) modern laws look over-much like a thesaurus pitched into a blender. They really aren't, but the distinction is why it takes about 4 years of study to become a lawyer.

 

[Craig_AR]

"but I don't want the federal government anywhere near any gun laws,"
While I understand the sentiment, the reality is that Federal legal processes must be involved in the process, either by Federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President, or by case law decided in Federal courts. That is because our core rights to arms is explicit in our Federal Constitution. Federal law is sometimes necessary to make sure the individual and separate states do not interfere with our rights under the Constitution. The concealed carry reciprocity bill is an attempt to do just that. Other examples include civil rights laws, voting rights laws, privacy laws, and the Supreme Court rulings on marriage and abortion, and gun rights (Heller & McDonald).