jnojr
Member
I don't suppose there's any chance Congress can get that pushed through before the lefties take over...
What happened to National Reciprocity?
- Thread starter jnojr
- Start date
- Status
Don't worry. The DLC and the rest of the Republicans-lite will be careful to "triangulate" and "not let any daylight between us and the Republicans". The Progressives are a minority in the DP. And they have much bigger fish to fry like health care, minimum wage, ethics laws and similar.
The Republicans had six years of complete ownership of the government. They didn't do squat for gun owners. Companies that make guns, yes. The proles like you and me? Not even. Why in the world would they start now? Most of them will make all the correct noises about the Second Amendment around election time when they want the gun nuts to line up at the polls and press the correct button. The rest of the time the RP would rather we shut up and go away.
It's kind of like being a union member under the Democrats. You're taken for granted, given some lip-service (no, not THAT kind of lip-service) and stabbed in the back when it's expedient. After all, where else are you going to go?
The Republicans had six years of complete ownership of the government. They didn't do squat for gun owners. Companies that make guns, yes. The proles like you and me? Not even. Why in the world would they start now? Most of them will make all the correct noises about the Second Amendment around election time when they want the gun nuts to line up at the polls and press the correct button. The rest of the time the RP would rather we shut up and go away.
It's kind of like being a union member under the Democrats. You're taken for granted, given some lip-service (no, not THAT kind of lip-service) and stabbed in the back when it's expedient. After all, where else are you going to go?
kengrubb
Member
As is so often the case, Todd tells part of the story, at best.
HR218, nationwide concealed carry for cops, was a necessary first step before nationwide concealed carry for citizens would ever see the light of day. Let's all be grown up boys and girls and acknowledge that truth. If cops couldn't carry nationwide, then there's no way politically that private citizens would ever be allowed.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:1:./temp/~bdW83Z:@@@X|/bss/108search.html
HR5441, the DHS appropriations bill, contained language from the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act" which helps prevent more post-disaster gun confiscations--a la Katrina.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05441:@@@S
HR5092, the BATFE Modernization and Reform Act passed the House, with a bipartisan albeit heavily weighted Republican support, but Democrats held it up in the Senate.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll476.xml
Finally, ensuring there ARE gun manufacturers does a great deal for gun owners. To believe otherwise is to deny reality. The antigunners seeks to destroy the 2A by any means--whether thru licensing, bans, ammo taxes, or by permitting lawsuits that will bankrupt the gun makers.
HR218, nationwide concealed carry for cops, was a necessary first step before nationwide concealed carry for citizens would ever see the light of day. Let's all be grown up boys and girls and acknowledge that truth. If cops couldn't carry nationwide, then there's no way politically that private citizens would ever be allowed.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:1:./temp/~bdW83Z:@@@X|/bss/108search.html
HR5441, the DHS appropriations bill, contained language from the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act" which helps prevent more post-disaster gun confiscations--a la Katrina.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05441:@@@S
HR5092, the BATFE Modernization and Reform Act passed the House, with a bipartisan albeit heavily weighted Republican support, but Democrats held it up in the Senate.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll476.xml
Finally, ensuring there ARE gun manufacturers does a great deal for gun owners. To believe otherwise is to deny reality. The antigunners seeks to destroy the 2A by any means--whether thru licensing, bans, ammo taxes, or by permitting lawsuits that will bankrupt the gun makers.
RealGun
Member
I really don't follow how the Feds can find jurisdiction because of the Second Amendment. States issue licenses merely because they haven't been confronted with the 14th Amendment carrying the 2nd with it. Imposing the 2nd on the States was one of the primary reasons for the 14th Amendment. In other words, we should need no steenkeeng licenses.
The compromise is to let the States continue to add licensing and reciprocity.
Good to remember that if the Feds issue licenses, they've got you. They can cancel or suspend them all with a couple signatures.
The compromise is to let the States continue to add licensing and reciprocity.
Good to remember that if the Feds issue licenses, they've got you. They can cancel or suspend them all with a couple signatures.
Manedwolf
member
I still don't know how people misunderstand this. That the idea is national RECIPROCITY of existing licenses, NOT federal licenses!
rbernie
Contributing Member
Agreed, but the net result is the same - we let the Feds kick down one more door that's been reserved for state's rights. We probably ought to be careful about letting the Feds get involved in things that ought not concern them, because in the end no good usually comes of it.
El Tejon
Member
States do NOT have the right to deny its citizens their civil rights. That's why we had Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment as the Southern states were attempting to deny civil rights to its citizens.
Today some states are attempting to deny the civil right of owning and carrying firearms. It is past time for the federal government to confirm its authority to guarantee a republican form of government and prevent states from interfering with, in the words of Dred Scott, our right to carry guns wherever we go.
Today some states are attempting to deny the civil right of owning and carrying firearms. It is past time for the federal government to confirm its authority to guarantee a republican form of government and prevent states from interfering with, in the words of Dred Scott, our right to carry guns wherever we go.
mons meg
Member
I don't have a problem with the Feds exercising the 14th as long as the States remember to exercise the 10th every now and then.
ctdonath
Member
Simple: they ignore it.
RealGun
Member
If you invite the Feds to dictate how the process works, the States then become subordinate. It then wouldn't take a very clever lawyer to exploit that precedent to find federal jurisdiction over the entire process. Since it didn't originate at the federal level, they aren't likely to be challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. You effectively compromised away any claim that licensing is fundamentally unconstitutional. You even asked for and supported the legislation. NRA did that very thing back in the 1920s, and that's how we got licensing in the first place.
OP
OP
jnojr
Member
Huh???
HR218 passed nearly three years ago. So, where's reciprocity for everyone else? Where are the police groups campaigning for and demanding reciprocity?
Oh, yeah, that's right... the cops are out of this fight. They have their reciprocity. They're done. Let's all be grown up boys and girls and acknowledge that truth.
Now that cops can carry, that's it... with the Democrats taking over, there will be no reciprocity for everyone else. Our only chance was reciprocity for everyone, and that ship has left port.
As usual, I tell the part of the story that's actually true to the best of my knowledge. HR 218 was a nice little perk for the government's selected servants. If you carry tin, then you get a pleasant privilege that the common herd is denied. And you even get it when you aren't the government's killer any longer. That's not reciprocity and a recognition of basic civil rights. It's a further distinction between the plebes and the Elect. The anti-gun wing of the Democrats didn't mind or raise much of a fuss. It reinforced the idea that guns were fine for civil servants, not for citizens.
The chatter (read "lies") went that once the cops had theirs they would help the rest of us get ours. At the time I said "Tell me the one about Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Grandma." Like every other way the GOP was supposed to protect and further our right to the tools of self defense it came to the thin end of nothing whittled down to a point. Corporations get protection. Government employees get privileges denied to the riff-raff. The rest of us get "Jam tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam today."
The chatter (read "lies") went that once the cops had theirs they would help the rest of us get ours. At the time I said "Tell me the one about Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Grandma." Like every other way the GOP was supposed to protect and further our right to the tools of self defense it came to the thin end of nothing whittled down to a point. Corporations get protection. Government employees get privileges denied to the riff-raff. The rest of us get "Jam tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam today."
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I'll disagree with Mr. Ellner's assertion that the Republicans did nothing for gun owners. Here are a few examples that I think aided gun owners:
1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US
2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.
3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".
4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy
5. Bush signs lawsuit preemption bill
6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks
7. Pass bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed
8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.
9. President gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Bush instead sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.
10. Sponsored a few pro-gun bills in the 109th Congress.
11. Lawsuit preemption bill declares Second an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment. Might be useful in front of SCOTUS?
12. House votes for repeal of D.C. gun ban.
13. Signed exemption for gunsmiths from manufacturing taxes for creating custom firearms.
14. Twice "filled the tree" as suggested by GOA on legislation in order to prevent it from being used as a vehicle for an AWB (once in July 2004 on a tort reform bill and again during S.397). I can't find another instance on any bill where the Senate has taken this action for any other group.
15. Bucked public opinion showing 68% of American supported renewal of assault weapons ban (including almost a third of NRA members) to kill ban not once; but three times.
In addition to that is the legislation mentioned earlier... perhaps all of that isn't as much as some people might have liked; but I think it is significantly more than we will see in the next two years. However, I look forward to the Democrat controlled Congress proving me wrong on this...
1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US
2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.
3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".
4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy
5. Bush signs lawsuit preemption bill
6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks
7. Pass bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed
8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.
9. President gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Bush instead sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.
10. Sponsored a few pro-gun bills in the 109th Congress.
11. Lawsuit preemption bill declares Second an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment. Might be useful in front of SCOTUS?
12. House votes for repeal of D.C. gun ban.
13. Signed exemption for gunsmiths from manufacturing taxes for creating custom firearms.
14. Twice "filled the tree" as suggested by GOA on legislation in order to prevent it from being used as a vehicle for an AWB (once in July 2004 on a tort reform bill and again during S.397). I can't find another instance on any bill where the Senate has taken this action for any other group.
15. Bucked public opinion showing 68% of American supported renewal of assault weapons ban (including almost a third of NRA members) to kill ban not once; but three times.
In addition to that is the legislation mentioned earlier... perhaps all of that isn't as much as some people might have liked; but I think it is significantly more than we will see in the next two years. However, I look forward to the Democrat controlled Congress proving me wrong on this...
Manedwolf
member
I'm surprised truckers haven't formed any sort of political action committee to lobby for this. I would think that professional truck drivers, especially the sort who own their own rigs, would really want the ability to be armed anywhere their deliveries take them?
Do you think????
The democritters have suffered a decade of defeats because of the AWB and other idiot things Klinton and his cronies did in 1994. Do you think MAYBE they have just learned to keep "guns" out of the issues? I hope they have (doubtful). When I was a kid, the "Democratic Party" was supposed to represent the "working class" blue collar type. Now, they represent women, gays, and welfare recipients (not omitting hippies like Kerry). They have left their traditional role of representing the hard working Americans with a strong standing in the constitution of the United States to a role that is no better than Communism in it's purest form. Welfare is communism, not social aid in my book. If you are under a welfare program, they tell you where to live, what you can eat, and what to do if you are to continue drawing assistance. A perfect example is Michigan's Governor. She has taxed the heck out of the working man, enacted a "driver responsibility law" which actually makes you pay many times for one infraction (illegal). Democrat! I spit in their face! The truly sad part about Michigan, they voted her in again (UNBELIEVEABLE). The UNIONS backed her. Industry is leaving this state in hordes, and she's trying to figure out how to drain the working stiff to compensate for the losses. God I hate politics!
The democritters have suffered a decade of defeats because of the AWB and other idiot things Klinton and his cronies did in 1994. Do you think MAYBE they have just learned to keep "guns" out of the issues? I hope they have (doubtful). When I was a kid, the "Democratic Party" was supposed to represent the "working class" blue collar type. Now, they represent women, gays, and welfare recipients (not omitting hippies like Kerry). They have left their traditional role of representing the hard working Americans with a strong standing in the constitution of the United States to a role that is no better than Communism in it's purest form. Welfare is communism, not social aid in my book. If you are under a welfare program, they tell you where to live, what you can eat, and what to do if you are to continue drawing assistance. A perfect example is Michigan's Governor. She has taxed the heck out of the working man, enacted a "driver responsibility law" which actually makes you pay many times for one infraction (illegal). Democrat! I spit in their face! The truly sad part about Michigan, they voted her in again (UNBELIEVEABLE). The UNIONS backed her. Industry is leaving this state in hordes, and she's trying to figure out how to drain the working stiff to compensate for the losses. God I hate politics!
romma
Member
Awesome point Mandewolf... That may be worth exploring.
Autolycus
Member
Basically the best time to get this passed was under the Republican leadership because GENERALLY the Republican party is friendlier to guns and gun issues than the Democrat party. But either way gun control is not currently that big an issue nationally. The war on Iraq, health care, gay rights, and stem cell research seem to be at the forefront of American minds right now. Lets see if maybe we can slip National Reciprocity by.
Please lets not turn this into a discussion about how the Republicans have protected our 2nd Amendment rights and the Democrats have not.
National reciprocity would be great since I am currently unable to carry in my home state of Illinois.
I agree with Ken Grubbs statement about the simple truth is that if cops cant CCW nationally then there is little chance normal people would be able to. It is the simple truth.
However I agree with others that since we scratched their back they should be scratching ours.
The simple truth is it would have been best to lobby against this bill and to get one that granted national reciprocity of all CCW permits and licenses. This way a retired/off duty cop would be able to get a permit and carry like everyone else.
Please lets not turn this into a discussion about how the Republicans have protected our 2nd Amendment rights and the Democrats have not.
National reciprocity would be great since I am currently unable to carry in my home state of Illinois.
I agree with Ken Grubbs statement about the simple truth is that if cops cant CCW nationally then there is little chance normal people would be able to. It is the simple truth.
However I agree with others that since we scratched their back they should be scratching ours.
The simple truth is it would have been best to lobby against this bill and to get one that granted national reciprocity of all CCW permits and licenses. This way a retired/off duty cop would be able to get a permit and carry like everyone else.
Brett Bellmore
Member
2a. Attourney General continues having the Justice Department vigorously defend the constitutionality of every stinking gun control law ever enacted, while urging the Supreme court to deny certiori to all legal challenges.
Face it, on that one, we got the words, and THEY got the action.
RealGun
Member
Those issues don't involve the House and Senate Committees that address gun control. Take a look at who is and who will be on those Committees and tell me you get a warm feeling.
Autolycus
Member
Realgun your right. I would like to sneak it by... perhaps trading it for some sort of support on an issue for the Democrats. Gay marriage licenses from Massachusettes being recognized across the country like CCW licenses from Florida being recognized across the country.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I know it is not popular to offer a suggestion that doesn't have betrayal of the NRA, gun owners, or some darker conspiracy at its heart; but I am going to suggest that when a Board of Directors member of the NRA asks the Supreme Court to deny certiori, there might be a good reason for it.
As for National Reciprocity, it is gone. Don't expect to see any bill with that theme leave committee until after the 2008 elections.
michaelbane
Member
I have to agree with this quote. Before H.R. 218 was passed, LEAA was pushing for national cop carry and national civillian carry. I haven't gotten a single newsletter from them since H.R. 218 was passed.
As far as Congress' authority to mandate reciprocity, don't forget the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.
Last edited:
kengrubb
Member
michaelbane said:
If we're to have something like HR218 for private citizens, it's going to be one helluva uphill fight. Perception remains that D's are bad, R's are good, on the gun issue. While generally true, it's not completely true. As such, the antis tend to duck down when the R's are in power and stand up when the D's are in power.
I would rather NOT have the feds involved in the whole messy issue--other than to give blanket recognition of state issued licenses in National Parks, Post Offices, et al. Many of the states are blasting ahead with more and more recognition of most if not all other licenses. Simply requires a bit of time and determination convincing legislators.
FF&C, in my non-legal opinion, does not apply.michaelbane said:
Carrying a gun without a license is a criminal matter. I disagree with the need to get such a license on Constitutional grounds, but that's reality in America today.
Criminal laws of state X do not obtain in state Y. Prostitution is legal in some counties of Nevada, but a licensed prostitute cannot simply cross the border into California and ply her trade under FF&C.
Before someone raises the Driver's License issue, I would state that to my knowledge no court has ever held that FF&C applied to Driver's Licenses. The states have entered into Compacts whereby they agree to honor one another's Driver's Licenses. Read all about the DLC, the NRVC and the proposed DLA.
http://www.aamva.org/KnowledgeCenter/Driver/Compacts/
I know about these not because I'm a highly anal retentive and capable user of google--although I am. I know about these because I worked on contract at the Department of Licensing, Driver's License Section, in Olympia for about a year.
kengrubb
Member
Signed July 22, 2004. 2 years and nearly 4 months.jnojr said:
Obviously not doing much, but HR218 met with resistance even AFTER it passed in places like NYC, Chicago and Los Angeles. Kinda like New Jersey ignoring federal law on the transportation of firearms thru the state.jnojr said:
It's not like the world ended on November 7th for nationwide reciprocity. For the next two years, yes. But forever? Hardly. Blanket reciprocity and liberal application of reciprocity agreements has been growing. If most Right To Carry states took the Indiana/Idaho/Kentucky/Utah approach on reciprocity, the issue would be so hard to argue that the antis might well concede.jnojr said:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
michaelbane said:
Rep. John Hoestettler of IN introduced the "SAFE Act" (H.R. 1243 - 78 cosponsors) for National Reciprocity for CCW on March 8, 2005. Basically it got introduced in the very next session of Congress. A different version establishing a national standard for concealed carry was introduced December 14, 2005 (H.R. 4547 - 102 cosponsors), and yet another version was introduced in the Senate on May 26, 2006 (S. 3275 - 25 cosponsors).
You may not have received news via the LEAA; but you can find NRA-ILA news alerts on the topic and it was being pursued, though apparently not everyone here was aware of that fact.
- Status
Similar threads
