National Reciprocity…Why Not?

Jeff Knox of  FirearmsCoalition.org writes [via Ammoland.com]

If the hype of the anti-rights crowd and their friends in the media is true, all Americans are on the verge of being gunned down in the streets if a new bill introduced in the House becomes law. The new “national reciprocity” bill would require all states to recognize the concealed carry licenses and permits issued by other states, and would also protect the right to carry for citizens from states where no license or permit is required.

The bill, H.R. 38, was introduced by North Carolina Republican, Richard Hudson, and is just the latest in a string of similar bills that have been floating around Congress for a number of years.

The key distinguishing feature of this one is the protection of carry rights for people from “Constitutional Carry” states, where they are not currently required to obtain a license to legally carry a concealed firearm.

Vermont, for instance, has never had a law against carrying a concealed firearm, so they have never had a licensing system. Eleven other states do offer licenses, but the licenses are not required for carry within the state. Most Constitutional Carry states also offer licenses so that their citizens who choose to obtain one can avoid hassles and delays when purchasing firearms, and can carry when visiting states where their state’s licenses are recognized.

There is a bit of a rift within the rights community over the idea of federal legislation forcing states to honor carry permits from other states.

The main argument being one of state autonomy. Many gun rights advocates believe such measures violate the 9th and 10th Amendments, and are beyond the authority of the feds. There is also fear of establishment of some sort of federal minimum standard for issuance of carry licenses.

The concern is that if a federal standard is accepted, the standard could eventually be tightened to the point that no one would be able to get a license. Many would prefer to just keep the federal government out of the carry debate and leave it with the states.

The Hudson bill avoids any hint of national standards, and addresses the recognition issue from a “full faith and credit” perspective – having states honor them as they do other states’ marriage licenses and drivers licenses.

The basic argument is, if Arizona trusts me to carry a gun, and I do so safely, why would I be considered a threat in New Jersey?

Realistically, most people who commit violent crimes with firearms are not first-time offenders. Most have extensive criminal records and are actually forbidden to even touch a firearm or ammunition under federal law.

This fact seems to elude those who are always calling for additional firearm laws. The criminals are already illegally in possession of firearms, so what is another law going to do? Does anyone suppose criminals illegally carrying firearms, are going to do it more, or be more dangerous, if more honest citizens are legally carrying firearms?

These laws don’t seem to impede criminals much, and liberalizing lawful carry – with or without licensing – has never resulted in the “blood in the streets” predictions of the hoplophobes. Turns out that criminals and stupid people do criminal and stupid things regardless of laws, while responsible citizens act responsibly, regardless of the laws.

There are some real concerns among rights advocates regarding the details of H.R. 38. It looks like the bill was written to require states to honor carry licenses and permits, then provisions for honoring the carry rights of citizens of Constitutional Carry states seem to have been added as an afterthought. That amendment makes the original section redundant. Clearly telling states that carry rights from any state must be recognized in every other state, regardless of licensing or permits.

There should also be real consequences for any state, or officials who unjustly prosecute someone, or otherwise fail to fulfill their obligations under this law.

Expect to see Congress – particularly the Senate, where the pro-rights majority is very thin – use the existence of the two separate sections, and the disagreement within the rights community, as leverage to water down the bill and divide advocates.

Since the Senate will be the harder test, I would prefer to see the bill advanced there first, rather than going through the struggle and publicity of a big battle in the House, only to have the legislation die in some Senate subcommittee. If we can get a decent bill through the Senate, it should fly smoothly through the House, meanwhile the needed improvements can be worked out for the House version.

The new President has already committed to sign a national carry bill upon arrival on his desk.

So far an equivalent to Rep. Hudson’s bill has not been introduced in the Senate. Hopefully that will soon be rectified. In the meantime, readers are encouraged to give their Representatives a call to urge them to co-sponsor H.R. 38, while addressing its shortcomings.

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

comments

  1. avatar Mad Max says:

    Constitutional Carry should be the national policy. The right to keep and bear arms should not be subject to any Federal or State restrictions.

    It is not a “State’s Rights” issue. It is a similar issue to same-sex marriage; the States are prohibited from restricting it.

    1. avatar C.S. says:

      It used to be, but then came Communist/Marxist philosophy.

      1. avatar cs says:

        It wasn’t a communist/marxist thing that gave rise to gun control in the US. It was a racist/eugenics thing, which had adherents across the political spectrum, that drove its rise. Then Prohibition gave it a little extra kick. Now it’s mainly the progressives that keep it going…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I understand your intention in using the term “progressives”, but I do not find significant difference between “progressive” and Communist/Marxist philosophy. Both categories contain people for whom the state is the natural and proper director of all activity of their subjects.

    2. avatar Pwrserge says:

      There is no constitutionally protected right to get married. Try again.

      1. avatar Slick says:

        Couldn’t one make the argument that it’s a freedom of association thing?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You can… Except that freedom of association does not give you the right to demand your association be given special privileges.

        2. avatar Andrew says:

          All one has to do is make the argument that it’s none of the government’s damn business what the hell we do, as long as both (or more) parties are consenting adults.

          9th amendment.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Except that that wasn’t the argument. The argument was special rules for special people. Which is why Scalia was right about the decision. It had nothing to do with the CotUS and every judge who signed on to the majority opinion needs to be stood up against a wall and shot.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          In what way, pre-Obergefell, were any consenting adults prevented from exercising their freedom of association?

          The Obergefell was all about the “stigma” that resulted from society not giving its imprimatur to certain associations, which the black-robed overlords found to be unfair.

      2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        The Constitution is silent about marriage therefore it is a state issue.

        The Constitution is not silent about the right to keep and bear arms, “shall not be infringed”. It is a right that states cannot infringe.

      3. avatar Mad Max says:

        “There is no constitutionally protected right to get married. Try again.” and “You can… Except that freedom of association does not give you the right to demand your association be given special privileges.”

        Tell that to Justice Roberts.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          One of the reasons why the SCotUS needs to be completely replaced by Trump. I think there is grounds to impeach every DNC appointed justice based on that ruling alone.

      4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Well, according to our black-robed overlords in their Obergefell decision, there is indeed a constitutionally protected “right to marry” – just like our black-robed overlords found a constitutionally protected “right to privacy” in Roe.

        1. avatar Chief Master says:

          Actually all the way back in Griswold v. Connecticut.

      5. avatar Azrael Mackay says:

        One of the primary arguments made in Obergefell v Hodges and related cases, was that denying same sex couples the same legal recognition, was a violation of their equal protection rights. It mainly had to do with the fact that one of the spouses had an estate all tied up that they had no right to despite being “married”. All armchair constitutional scholarship aside, as marriage is currently treated, the argument is a valid one. Marriage has been improperly tied up with government for a very long time, it is what it is. Also Marriage, in my opinion, is not a good bargain for most men these days anyway. Government has seen to that. Courts overwhelmingly side with women, whether justified or not. Pre-nups don’t mean squat. If gays want to suffer marriage like everybody else, let them have it.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I kinda like the same sex marriage “right”. The reasoning means we can stop the inanity of keeping people from marrying as many people ( or thngs) as they want. Love is all you need.

        2. avatar DaveW says:

          I would argue that same sex marriage is not a right protected under the Constitution in any way. We have long had common law marriages under which any union would be legally recognized after the passage of “x” years, the presentation of the pair as a married couple, the joint purchase of a home, etc.

          However, I do not believe that this would grant the right of gays to adopt children. They can try to have their own. Failing that, it should not be long before they become extinct. (Of course, some progressive would likely push to have them added to the endangered animal listing, and protect them within natural environments such as the San Francisco Castro District.)

      6. avatar Roymond says:

        According to the Supreme Court, there is a constitutional right to be married. It comes under freedom of association, and the Constitution prohibits the government from making one form of association superior to others, as that constitutes inequality before the law. The government thus has two choices: abolish all benefits and privileges for any and all forms of association, or grant equality before the law to similar forms. Given that the Constitution is gender neutral, if the government is going to grant special benefits and privileges to one sort of couple, those same benefits and privileges must be granted to all other sorts of couples.

        The marriage equality decision should have been unanimous on one of those options or the other. Choosing to uphold a system which enshrines inequality before the law was the traitorous choice.

    3. avatar bLoving says:

      My compliments to Mr.Knox for correctly referring to the opposing sides of this issue as “pro-rights” and “anti-rights” respectively.
      I’ve said it before and will repeat it here until it becomes a habit for us all: the right to keep AND bear arms is a civil right. We are not “pro-gun”, we are “pro- civil rights”. Our opponents are not “anti-gun”, they are “anti-civil rights”. Always refer to ourselves and them in this manner, especially in conversations with them. And when they seem puzzled by your word choice, ask them “which other civil rights of mine do you wish to prohibit, regulate, license or restrict?”

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        Bravo! Excellent. I have been guilty at times of using the wrong words… won’t happen again! 🙂

      2. avatar Ebby123 says:

        .
        .
        ^^^^STOP SCROLLING AND READ THIS!!
        .
        .
        We as a community need to change our language to reflect reality.

    4. avatar Just Joe says:

      The NJ scenario is that they arrest and lock you up for carrying w/o a NJ permit. You are convicted by a court in NJ.
      You lose your gun rights forever. You spend 1000’s of $$$ on lawyers to have your conviction overturned by SCOTUS. NJ gets no punishment from the Feds, because there is nothing in the bill to do that. NJ continues to arrest and convict out of state CCW permit holders. Just stay away from NJ, NY, MA, CA, etc.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        There’s an amendment to write to Congress about — get enforcement language in there!

        Use Reagan’s big stick: no comply, no get federal highway dollars.

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    If there is a “militia” of the civilian (non-military/police) populace, those militia members reside in a particular state. Outside of the authority of Congress to regulate the militia, where is the authority in the constitution for members of the militia of one state to intrude for an unlimited time into the territory of the militia of another state (except when called by Congress to muster and move to defense)?

    I can see the legality of “right of passage” with firearms, but not the right to go anywhere for more time than passage (no Disneyland stays) through another state (“My house; my rules). We should be looking to strengthen the application of the 10th amendment, not watering down with more federal legislation.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      Fuck the 10th amendment. States have proven that they can’t be trusted to obey their own constitutions. The 14th amendment is here to stay. The CotUS applies equally to the states as it does to the Feds. If it takes federal laws to make the states fall in line, so be it.

    2. avatar B says:

      Right of passage is already law of the land in FOPA 86. Hasn’t stopped New York and Jersey (LOL at the article pic) from infringing on the rights and arresting citizens passing through their occupied territory. F state’s rights on this, the rebels in the northeast and west have shown they will not recognize the incorporated civil rights of their citizens and should be forced to comply with the law. Huh, is that irony that Dems are once again on the wrong side of a civil rights issue?

      1. avatar Rich K. says:

        Don’t know how true it is, but I heard somewhere that New Jerkzey cops like to run the license plates of out-of-state drivers to find out if they have CPL’s in their own state and then use that info to unlawfully harass those drivers and search their vehicles for guns.

    3. avatar Demo Man says:

      Sam- “We should be looking to strengthen the application of the 10th amendment, not watering down with more federal legislation.”

      I’m not sure if the average NRA member has the education or brain power to understand your legal and constitutional observations. Mostly they like to be part of a membership organization that makes them feel good about themselves, then go back to sleep and trust that their betters are “looking out for them” in D.C., although the record shows that NRA, Inc. consistently sells out their own membership to the anti-gun police unions.

    4. avatar MPH says:

      I think you’ve made a modern classic mistake (in the sense that a lot of people make the same mistake these days). The phrase “well regulated militia” doesn’t mean that congress, or anyone else, can “regulate” a militia in the way regulate means today. According to a 1790 dictionary, “regulated” meant “practiced”. “Militia” also was defined as “an armed body of men, raised for the defense of a region, not under government control.” This was a reference to what we know as “the minute man”, those private members (almost all male back then) of the community who had committed to responding to the alarm of an attack against the village/town with their own weapons. They would practice this frequently, to ensure that everyone knew where to go and what to do. Recall that the French and Indian wars had happened within living memory when the constitution was written, and the minute man was the response (he was supposed to respond within a minute, hence the name).

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Then, what do you make of this:
        Article 1: Clauses 15 – 16
        http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/47-militia.html

    5. avatar Roymond says:

      Sam, you have the equation backwards: you’re starting with the assumption that government power trumps individual rights, when the fact is that all government power derives from individual rights. The question is not where do militia members from one state get the authority to traveling another state, the question is where any government, state or otherwise, gets the authority to tell an individual who is legally present that he may NOT exercise a particular natural, inherent, inalienable right?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        If the 10th had not been abolished by the 14th, the matter would be entirely a state’s right question. My question was predicated on the validity of an abolished constitutional amendment, pretending states still had the right to determine what happens inside their borders. On the whole, simple legislation to evade, or amend, the constitution is unconstitutional. Such was at the root of the Civil War. I realize we are no longer the type of people who founded the nation (and who fought the second American revolution), any more than Italians are direct descendants of the Romans, but the right of states to work out their own societies should never have been abolished. The fact that the 10th was abolished, making states mere provinces of the central government, does not justify or validate the idea that a piece of national legislation determining who may do what with a firearm across the states should de facto amend the constitution’s second amendment. What is proposed is nothing more than using the tactics of those we abhor for using legislation to amend the constitution,

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          The Fourteenth hardly abolishes the Tenth, though it does change the nature of its reach. Some of what it does is give more oomph to the full faith and credit clause by strengthening the need to honor other states’ actions.

          And right there is the route we need to go: forget legislation, get a 2nd-loving SCOTUS, then get a state like Montana or Idaho or Vermont (or all three) committed to the cause, after which send some citizens of those states into California and New Jersey, and when those citizens are arrested under anti-2nd laws, the STATES sue California on behalf of their citizens for not honoring the fourteenth-strengthened full faith and credit clause.

          Because when state sues state, the case goes directly to the Supreme court.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The problem with full faith and credit is that the application is “may”. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, veterinarians, and a whole bunch of other state credentialed professions do not benefit. Each state refuses the others. I do not have any hope that gun owners will be considered any differently. We just keep dancing around the Maypole. We need SCOTUS to declare the second amendment is absolute, period, “And this time, we really, really, really mean it !”. Of course, Heller and McDonald said otherwise, already. What can the pro gun lobby offer that is interestingly enough different that SCOTUS will agree to hear? Maybe Chas. Nichols case, which is a grenade with the pin pulled. If he wins, the only constitutionally protected gun right will be open carry. After that, states can all become “may issue” if they choose. Nichols will not overturn any “constitutional carry” laws immediately, but Nichols puts them all at risk for the future. Although 2A supporters would “win” should Nichols prevail, we also stand to lose a great deal.

  3. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    How about we just concentrate on making the 2nd amendment available to “all ” lawful US citizens ! Especially, those who live in “anti freedom states / Anti pro2@ / authoritarian states”. Who INFRINGE on it’s citizens Constitutional rights on daily basis ! We need an addendum to the 2nd amendment that makes it a “Capital crime” for any Politician, Police , Judge, Private landlord , Private Organizations, Employer, Doctor, etc. to infringe upon in any manner. A lawful US citizens Constitutional rights. With compensatory damages of not less than 250k per event . As well as fines, prisonment , and other legal liabilities… All Civil Rights should be available to “all ” Americans, NOT just a few…[Re: Any person going from one state into another…Has the same rights as any other citizen in any other state…] …Also, there is no such thing as “Pre crime “… And Murder is a crime…It is already against the law…

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      If a landowner can’t not rent to a firearms owner because guns, and thus is barred from doing what he wishes with his own land, you just infringed on his right to be secure in his property and to do with it as he pleases. I’m not sure we should get into the business of making one fundamental right more fundamental than any other. Talk about a slippery slope.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah… we’re already on your slope. I don’t see why gun ownership and political affiliation should be treated differently than race or religion.

        1. avatar Katy says:

          Because ownership is not an immutable characteristic. And because, do you want to rent your house to Democrats?

          D.C. includes political affiliation, do we really want to be like DC?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Religion is hardly immutable. According to leftists, neither is race.

      2. avatar hobbez says:

        Nothing in this bill will force a private property owner to allow firearms if they choose not to. Where does this argument come from? I see this property vs. RKBA argument being made all the time and I have yet to see anyone, anywhere propose a law that would invoke this. Your not pitting one right against another, your comparing apples to heat resistant space shuttle tiles…. The Second Amendment ONLY applies to government, not to private property owners. I am not aware of any law in any state that forces a citizen to allow others to carry firearms on private property and this law doesn’t change that at all.

        1. avatar No one of consequence says:

          I was responding to this sentence in Mr. Walker’s post: “We need an addendum to the 2nd amendment that makes it a “Capital crime” for any Politician, Police , Judge, Private landlord , Private Organizations, Employer, Doctor, etc. to infringe upon in any manner.”

          That is most certainly pitting one right against another.

      3. avatar B says:

        This is actually already in law. A business is open to the public and has to provide equal service. See lbgt wedding cake v. baker and camera man. Its not a huge stretch to apply equal protection to a lawful Constitutional right. Private property as in a home is different and you of course can tell someone to leave, however a rental or lease is also different. The landlord can’t boot someone out for doing something legal, like exercising their 2nd amendment right by owning a gun.

        There was a case in Colorado involving a Marine, and one in Maine involving a man in a wheelchair. The Colorado policy was dropped and the Maine is still pending I think. We do have case law backing this up, under consumer protection laws about unfair contracts that can’t be enforced due to one person having extreme power over the other. Several states also have protections for tenants against landlords specifically infringing on their rights. If you can force a tenant via contract to give up a right to bear arms, you could also force them to give up their right to vote. Its a ridiculous premise. I don’t think any cases have actually been ruled on that I can find, they seem to get settled before a precedent can be made.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          Having a home _is_ a natural right, though since it cannot trump the right to life it is the responsibility of a homeowner to provide protection for any he decrees may not be armed in his home.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “See lbgt wedding cake v. baker and camera man.”

          Afraid those are two of many “protected groups” who have historically been subjected to unfair, uncaring, evil, un-American, unfeeling, unjust, hateful, biased and whatever…..discrimination. Gun owners are not a class/group of “protected persons”. Rules and laws you suggest cannot be applied to gun owners because, well, gun, or something.

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          Gun owners could become a protected class if we can show that we are being discriminated against, and have a common and visible trait. The hard part would be showing that we lack power to protect ourselves under the political process, but I think that wouldn’t be excessively difficult to do for an honest and fair court.

          That we are discriminated against is obvious, merely from the existence of “gun-free” zones. Such zones require us to not carry, which is equivalent to being asked to give up our free speech or our religion to enter a place.

          That discrimination against us can and does result in harm is evidenced by the fees and burdens imposed on us merely for exercising an enumerated right — and the bonus is that this harm is being done by the government which is supposed to uphold that right!

          Our common and visible trait is the bearing of arms, wearing clothing that affirms the right to do so, etc. Taken together these characteristics are at least as visible of those of people belonging to a specific religion.

          In response to the claim of political powerlessness opponents will point to the NRA and its apparent clout, but that is subject to refutation: the NRA is in reality always on the defensive, fighting further erosion of our right, and when we are not on the defensive we’re fighting to regain some aspect of the liberty the Constitution actually guarantees us. And at this point the evidence is that we’re losing — and in the places where we’re not losing, we’re subject to insult and ridicule.

          Get someone like the two who argued the marriage equality case, Oles and Boies, and it wouldn’t be difficult to get a court to rule we do in fact constitute a “suspect class”, and that’s one step away from becoming a protected class.

          Become a protected class, and national — including possessions and territories — constitutional carry is a no brainer, almost an inevitable consequence.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          From the other side, I would argue that 120,000,000 gun owners with 300,000,000 guns (and growing by millions every year) can hardly claim “discrimination”. SCOTUS already granted “reasonable restrictions”; no discrimination there. BTW, none of the courts accept any form of “absolute” regarding individual (civil) rights, even less so if controlled by liberals. So, we can never reach the place where we can claim any rule is “infringement”, and prema facie unconstitutional on its face, for that simple reason.

          There truly is no long term political up-side for pushing gun rights (and state attorneys general are politicians). Long ago, I was a campaign staffer for a US Senator. One of the things we learned is that rabid supporters are not reliable voters, or sources of funding. The theory was that if, as and when rabid supporters get what they want, they generally lose interest in anything else. So the balancing act was skewed to the money sources, with just enough kind words for the single-issue “nuts” to keep them voting. Either that, or learn to grow support without resorting to the “nuts”.

      4. avatar Roymond says:

        Land as property is not an inherent right, as it does not arise from self-ownership. If you could manufacture new land, thus increasing the surface area of the earth — not just the land surface, as the ocean covering an area is just a detail, but the actual surface area — then land as property would be an inherent right, because it would then be a product of the self.

        So the right of an individual to bear arms cannot be put aside by a title granted by government.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      How about we just concentrate on making the 2nd amendment available to “all ” lawful US citizens !

      That’s what’s beautiful about federally mandated reciprocity. What do you think will happen when the residents of New Jersey, New York City, California, Maryland, etc. see non-residents with greater freedom to exercise their natural rights inside their own state lines than they themselves have?

      The people will revolt, and the Iron Curtain will fall, because the people will force their legislatures to enact carry laws that don’t infringe upon their rights. “May Issue” will go away, as will “Shall Issue” that is de facto “May Issue”.

      That’s why the anti-rights crowd oppose federally mandated reciprocity so fervently.

  4. avatar Sarah says:

    My biggest concern is that this law will stagnate or impede the progress of constitutional carry.

    1. avatar B says:

      That’s totally against the trend that’s been happening in states. We recover the right to carry. Blood fails to run in the streets. Citizens exercise their rights and like it. Fees and hurdles go down and carry goes up. More people lawfully carry. No blood in the streets, crime goes down. Citizens call for Constitutional Carry cause they realize the folly of gun control. Gotta beat the antis using their legislative weapon of choice, incrementalism. #winning

    2. avatar Demo Man says:

      Sarah- NRA, Inc. has actively opposed constitutional carry because it is not profitable for NRA lawyers. A complicated licensing system which NRA can gradually fight in court over years creates job security for their lobbyists and legal department to justify their fundraising and continued existence.

      Here in Illinois, NRA did not spend a dime for the past forty years to promote any type of citizen carry. NRA at first did nothing to support the Otis McDonald v. Chicago case, 2nd Amendment Foundation funded it.

      When McDonald got to the docket with SCOTUS, NRA hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement at the last minute to barge into the case and steal ten minutes from Alan Gura’s thirty minute oral argument time. NRA later made $1.3 MILLION in legal fees from the city of Chicago on the McDonald case after they joined it.

      When Illinois state Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” concealed carry bill became law in 2013, it was written by NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde with criminal penalties of SIX MONTHS or ONE YEAR for hundreds of gun-free zones, plus the newly created “crime” of Duty to Inform. With criminal penalties, the cops, courts, and lawyers can impose fines and jail time for every violation of the carry act. This keeps NRA in business. Their motive is profit and control, not freedom.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        I see you’re back again.

        Just shut the fuck up already.

        1. avatar Demo Man says:

          What’s the highest level of education you have completed in your life? Not counting the clown academy.

        2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          my kindergarten teacher, miss lenahan, was a dwarf. we only saw eye to eye literally, so i knew the meaning of shut up firmly by then.
          seriously, shut up.

  5. avatar Cameron Leonard says:

    Recently had a horrible time attempting to get my CT non resident permit. They of course don’t recognize my Florida permit. After countless hours trying to track down all forms they needed including notarized papers and fingerprints they denied me. The reason was my training certificate I sent them was “not accepted “. After contacting the department they had zero legitimate answers to my question of why? And the main reason I asked why was due to the fact that my training certificate was of higher credentials than what they asked.it is an nra certified class and taught by an nra instructor. They finally resorted to just telling me that’s what the “commissioner” accepts and hung up the phone. So as much as I’m happy I at least get my 3 money orders I sent back, the money I spent preparing and sending the packet (over 60 dollars) I never get back.

  6. avatar FedUp says:

    We already have nationwide LEO/retiree reciprocity, don’t we?

    And CCW license holders are 1/23rd as prone to criminal violence as LEOs, so just what violent crime do these idiots expect to suddenly happen if CCW holders gain nationwide reciprocity?

  7. avatar Demo Man says:

    National reciprocity is a trap and a Trojan Horse. In time it will lead to a federalized concealed carry licensing system under control of the ATF or some other federal agency.

    How about a license application with an UNLIMITED privacy waiver like that which magically appeared in Illinois’ 2013 concealed carry bill, so the feds can fish into your tax returns, military records, bank accounts, or anything else they want to?

    How about a mandatory blood draw and at will urinalysis for drug testing in order to maintain your license?

    How about a mandatory psych exam? Think that’s far-fetched? Then why does the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board set up in state Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” carry bill in 2013 have a shrink? From Phelps bill:

    “one commissioner with at least 5 years of service as a federal judge; 2 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience serving as an attorney with the United States Department of Justice; 3 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience as a federal agent or employee with investigative experience or duties related to criminal justice under the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Homeland Security, or Federal Bureau of Investigation; and one member with at least 5 years of experience as a licensed physician or clinical psychologist with expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”

    These bills are written by police unions and NRA, Inc. cooperates with the police unions to advance the legal infrastructure for the criminal police state. Any sort of national reciprocity bill will be highjacked by the Deep State and used to control and monitor armed citizens as soon as Trump is no longer in office.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      This is my concern as well. By granting the Fed to control concealed carry at a national level, it gives a future administration and a future congress (that is anti-2A) authority to make the process as draconian as they can get away with (something akin to NJ, DC, or NYC’s permitting system). National CC shouldn’t be pushed until Heller has a firmer footing as well as some future SCOTUS case that affirms the right to bear arms outside the home.

      This is not saying that I wouldn’t love to be able to carry the next time I visit relatives in NYC or go to SoCal to visit my cousin. Of course the pitfalls there will be the states passing or already having laws specifically designed to ensnare legal carriers by having felony charges for carrying over an arbitrary number of rounds, or hollow points, or having night sights on your handgun… anything to make it easy to put legal gun owners in prison while allowing actual violent criminals to roam freely.

      1. avatar Demo Man says:

        NYC2AZ- NRA has probably already conducted a poll, and found that “national reciprocity” (whatever that means) is a popular buzzword with members, and can be used to raise money. Judging by what NRA did in Illinois’ 2013 carry bill, there is no such thing as too many members getting set up and killed by police.

        NRA used and sold out Otis McDonald, and they won’t stop until all of their members are dead from old age or blown away by cops. As long as the money keeps coming in, they will keep selling out. There is no profit in winning.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      National reciprocity is a trap and a Trojan Horse. In time it will lead to a federalized concealed carry licensing system under control of the ATF or some other federal agency.

      FUD

      Federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses has nothing whatsoever to do with federally mandated licensing requirements.

      Most of the States (most of the Trump states, at least) have worked out reciprocity on their own, without the need to harmonize licensing requirements. That’s why my Indiana LTCH (soon to be Indiana Reciprocity License, if HB 1159 Constitutional Carry passes) allows me to carry in about 35 states, even though Indiana basically gives the license away for little more than paying a fee (online form, BGC, get fingerprinted, pay fee, get LTCH).

      There is no reason to believe that federally mandated reciprocity – which mostly only impacts the 10-15 states that exert varying degree of control over reciprocity, rather than merely recognizing states that mutually recognize them – would lead to a push for the fed.gov to impose licensing requirements upon the states.

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        It’s going to come down to how much some anti-gun pol or SCOTUS opinion can bastardize the amount of federal control. Who could have ever foreseen the Commerce Clause being used to stop a farmer from growing food for his own family before the Fed Gov’t overstepped their authority and SCOTUS let them do it?

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        It would seem that a federal reciprocity law is a federal law controlling guns (even if it appears to “loosen” restrictions). The law would be “permission” from the federal government, reinforcing the idea that government retains the right of “permission” over the second amendment.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          It would seem that a federal reciprocity law is a federal law controlling guns (even if it appears to “loosen” restrictions). The law would be “permission” from the federal government, reinforcing the idea that government retains the right of “permission” over the second amendment.

          Actually, no. Two points:

          1. Federally mandated reciprocity controls state recognition of licensing. It is analogous to regulation of full faith and credit.

          2. Federally mandated reciprocity does not control the issuance, licensing requirements, or carry procedures of any of the states. Federally mandated reciprocity would not, for example, prevent a state from no longer issuing carry licenses to its own residents, thereby excluding that state from the mandate under federal reciprocity.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Regulating licensing is regulating the practice that is licensed. Professional engineers cannot simply waltz into another state and declare themselves a “professional engineer” because they have a license from some other state. Without obtaining a new state PE license, the engineer is prohibited from performing certain activities of a licensed engineer. If a federal law said all PE certifications are portable (national reciprocity), the federal law is granting permission for any PE to operate in any state. That change means the federal government controls where a PE may work. Seems the same would be true with national carry legislation.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Engaging in business as a licensed Professional Engineer is not a constitutionally protected, natural right. States have a legitimate interest in regulating which law-abiding citizens can practice in a professional capacity within the state.

          By contrast, bearing arms is a constitutionally protected, natural right, and states do not have a legitimate interest (because the states are barred, by the US constitution, from infringing upon that right) in regulating which law-abiding citizens can exercise that right by carrying a firearm within the state.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A federal law regarding control of private gun ownership remains a law controlling private gun ownership. My point was/is that any law regulating who and where regarding firearms is a law regulating guns. It is a grant of permission from the government because….it is legislation, not a constitutional amendment (of course, if such an amendment would constrain the existing second amendment, we would have a constitutional authority allowing the government to grant ownership permission). Petitioning the government to pass a law regarding who and where guns are permitted to be possessed, is gun regulation. No other term for it.

        5. avatar Demo Man says:

          Sam @ 17:26- You are correct as usual, and as usual your intelligent discourse is well above the I.Q. level of gun hicks who fervently want to believe that NRA, Inc. has their best interests at heart, although the record shows that NRA is their worst enemy.

          National reciprocity will probably become like the Commercial Driver’s License in time. My Illinois driver’s license is printed on the same piece of plastic as a CDL for those who drive trucks. But they give up more rights and privileges.

          For instance, a CDL holder cannot refuse a field sobriety test, breathalyzer test, or blood draw if a cop asks for it on a whim. The CDL is revoked, plus the CDL holder is considered drunk under the law at a lower level of blood alcohol concentration.

          With a regular driver’s license, I can refuse a field sobriety test and breathalyzer and take a three to six month suspension, then immediately hire a lawyer to contest the suspension and reverse it.

          National reciprocity is a scheme for federal control and will lead to centralized control as sure as the South lost the War Between the States.

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The federal government can force communist states to ‘honor’ my IA permit, but they can never force them to respect the Bill of Rights. I’d still avoid these states like the plague because getting caught in their territory while armed could still subject you to all sorts of harassment. If they reject the Constitution why would they respect federal law?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      If the bill passes, I plan to open carry in NJ as it is legal to do so for anybody with a NJ permit. If they harass me, I’ll look forward to the multi-million dollar USC 1983 settlement. I could use a new house.

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Until government officials become personally and financially responsible for such unconstitutional virtue signalling, I doubt they will change.

      2. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

        I predict that IF a national reciprocity bill is passed, it will have restrictive amendments attached to it, so that states like NJ can continue denying permits to their residents.

        It will look something like this: NJ will demand that whichever state has the strictest permit issuance laws, that state be chosen as the standard by which NJ and any other state can judge which permits to honor. Anything issued from a state with fewer restrictions will not have to be honored. Of course it will just so happen that the state with the strictest permit laws will not have permits available to out of state residents. Hence no NJ resident will be able to apply for it. And since Utah or Florida permits will most likely be far less restrictive and relatively easy to obtain, NJ will reserve the right to refuse to honor such permits.

        I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not holding my breath. I’ve been in NJ long enough to know that judges and politicians here will only lobby / vote for more restrictions, not fewer.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          It will look something like this: NJ will demand that whichever state has the strictest permit issuance laws, that state be chosen as the standard by which NJ and any other state can judge which permits to honor.

          Such an amendment would kill the bill. There would be no point in passing it, because it would merely perpetuate the status quo.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The optics, the optics. Getting credit for “doing something to support the second amendment.” I can see the credit-takers talking points already.

        3. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

          I realize that, but I’m guessing the bill will only pass if something like this is added to it. Actually, I don’t think such bill will pass anyway, but the only chance for it to pass would be if it included these restrictions. The NRA will say that’s the best they could do and they’ll be fine with it. This may leave only 3 or 4 states effectively not participating, but the NRA (and others) will not care, just as they don’t care now. NRA has been MIA in NJ for years. I don’t expect this to change.

          See, NJ has open / concealed carry laws on the books, and permits are theoretically obtainable. But only by LEOs, judges, politicians. But, technically, carrying guns is not legally forbidden, so everything is a-OK, right? Thus far, SCOTUS has been fine with this nonsense. Unless Trump appoints somebody who will help get rid of these impossible standards, I don’t see anything changing with respect to gun laws in restrictive states like NJ. Not even with national reciprocity passed.

        4. avatar Demo Man says:

          Pierogie- “The NRA will say that’s the best they could do and they’ll be fine with it. This may leave only 3 or 4 states effectively not participating, but the NRA (and others) will not care, just as they don’t care now. NRA has been MIA in NJ for years. I don’t expect this to change.”

          Totally correct. The worse the licensing scheme that NRA writes with the police unions, the more money NRA lawyers can make for the next twenty years “fighting for you” and the more job security NRA lobbyists have to “fix” the shit bills they put up in the first place.

          Take a look at Illinois’ 2013 concealed carry bill. As we speak, NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde claims that Illinois has a “shall-issue” bill, but there are thousands of applicants waiting over a year for their licenses because some cop objected to their application ANONOYMOUSLY, and they cannot see the smears or face their accusers in open court.

          Every one of these people have to pay a lawyer on their own dime to file for “administrative review” and NRA, Inc., isn’t lifting a finger to help them.

          It’s make-work for the cops and the lawyers. NRA is a corrupt rotten front filled with traitors and rats. If Todd Vandermyde & NRA will sell out Otis McDonald, they will backstab you and every member they have until they go belly up.

      3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Just make sure you keep up on the machinations of the New Jersey legislators and don’t miss the new law they pass to make NJ a concealed only state and makes open carry a felony. Then when you get out of prison in 7 years you’ll never be able to legally acquire or possess firearms again. You’re still subject to their carry laws. BTW, don’t get caught with hollow points.

        What we really need is a SCOTUS decision that declares that ‘shall not be infringed’ means ‘shall not be infringed’ and makes the whole country constitutional carry.

        1. avatar Rich K. says:

          They need to take the law even further, so that a person who chooses a firearm that is legal in the state that issued their permit can carry that firearm no matter where they go. So, a person with a Michigan permit could not be harassed for carrying a pistol with a 15-round magazine in New York, or hollow points in New Jersey. The idea being to force anti-rights states to eat s**t and smile while they’re doing it, and straightjacket them as far as harassing people who come from free states goes.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I believe NJ’s capacity ban is >15 rounds, but hollow points are a big no-no. The Fir earm Owner’s Protection Act already prevents them from prosecuting people from out of state for passing through their states with items that are legal federally but not legal in the state. You just can’t stop while you’re passing through.

          My point on national reciprocity is that the supreme soviets in communist states have no respect for the Constitution so why would they respect another federal law? Their laws are in place to intimidate people into rendering themselves defenseless and praying that their overlords will protect them from the wicked people. So if it’s not magazine capacities, hollow points or 3 dot sights – whatever excuse they can use. And if they can’t prosecute you for carrying a firea rm they’ll break your taillight, hold you in jail for 72 hours and fine you $600. They don’t like people like you and I.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Since the current bill covers ammunition and magazines, we’re ok on that end.

  9. avatar user says:

    “The new President has already committed to sign a national carry bill upon arrival on his desk.”

    I still don’t believe Trump. There is no evidence showing he is a gunholic. He is not our friend. He supports background check. He is a con man. Blahblahblah.

    I mean…Hillary can still win, right? Why doesn’t Obama arrest Trump for treason?

  10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    The main argument being one of state autonomy. Many gun rights advocates believe such measures violate the 9th and 10th Amendments, and are beyond the authority of the feds.

    There is no “states’ rights” issue.

    States do not have the authority to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, either of residents or non-residents of a given state. The second amendment to the US constitution is unambiguous and universal in denying all government entities the authority to infringe upon that right. That constraint was made explicit through the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, which was further made even more explicit through incorporation of the second amendment to the states, through McDonald v City of Chicago.

    There is also fear of establishment of some sort of federal minimum standard for issuance of carry licenses.

    This is a FUD fear. Federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses is akin to “full faith and credit”; no more, no less. It simply says that if State A issues resident carry permits (regardless of the licensing process or requirements), then State A must recognize the resident carry licenses issued to residents of State B (regardless of the licensing process or requirements).

    Federal mandate of licensing requirements would both be separate legislation, and inherently unconstitutional.

  11. avatar Sian says:

    I got into a facebook argument with someone calling themselves ‘Gun Safe America’ when they reposted Everytown’s rant about 50 state reciprocity, mainly arguing that felons/domestic abusers who get their gun rights restored will now be allowed to carry everywhere.

    Yeah, and?

    1. avatar Rich K. says:

      EXACTLY, Sian. What keeps domestic abusers, convicted felons, and other prohibited persons from carrying now? Absolutely nothing. That, combined with communistic state laws that keep law-abiding citizens from arming themselves, is why we end up with the tragedies we see on the news. OTOH, allow ALL law-abiding citizens to be armed, EVERYWHERE they have any right to be (including privately owned businesses, whether the owners/managers like it or not), and we would probably see a HUGE reduction in violent crime. Especially if the laws are written in such a way as to prevent the criminals (if they survive) or their families/heirs from suing in civil court if the shooting is determined to have been justified, and dealing harshly with any (looting, rioting) protestors who don’t like it.

  12. avatar JP says:

    Guys, guys, guys!

    This is a real move in the right direction – and if we can get this passed, *gun control as a concept will die*.

    The normalization of the right to carry will kill gun control as a cultural force. It will be a dead letter.

  13. avatar RCC says:

    Federal interference changed my state in Australia from walk in and walk out with firearm to 28 day minimum wait for each purchase. Plus if I go over 20 guns I need huge commercial safe

    Keeping government away from guns is the best idea.

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      One of the hardest things for you or anyone to understand about the average American NRA member is that many of them are average in every way, morally as well as medium to below average intelligence. Most are brain dead baby boomers who ducked the draft in Vietnam.

      “Keeping government away from guns is the best idea.”

      You can’t expect NRA members to comprehend a basic truth like that. Deep down they want to conform to the system and have a piece of plastic in their wallets to prove that they are “one of the good guys.” Maybe what, 20% of Americans hold a passport? Above all they want to believe that a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy like NRA, Inc. really cares about their lives and knows what’s best for them.

      That’s how we got Duty to Inform in Illinois’ 2013 concealed carry bill, because of swarms of hicks and losers from small towns who wave the flag and cheer at ball games, that to this day are too dense to figure out that NRA is their worst enemy on earth. You can’t help these people, they are too stupid. If you have any respect for yourself, you will never understand them either.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        A holy war against the NRA will be futile. There are too many different reasons for joining. You are correct that the prime directive for any organization, agency or club is to survive; everything else follows that dictum. There is another consideration, and that is people join the NRA not for the purpose of funding legal challenges to gun laws, but to stick a finger in the eye of lefties, liberals, statists and all other gun grabbers. I.E., because I can, I did. I do not have a gun, so you might think I have no dog in this fight. Not so. The constitution is worth protecting, and I love making lefties, liberals, statists and gun grabbers apoplectic with NRA symbology. I can afford $10 a year for the entertainment.

        Maybe today is an opportunity for you to take a different tone, and open discourse rather than risk becoming an irritating buzzing in the ear.

  14. avatar Mr Bad Example says:

    “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.”

    Honestly, What I would prefer is for California and other states which don’t recognize out of state carry permits to be challenged and defeated in the courts. Of course, that would probably require someone to get arrested and have years of appeals.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      It could be done very quickly — once we have a 2nd-loving SCOTUS. All that’s needed is for someone from a state like Montana or Idaho to be arrested in California, and then Montana sues California for not honoring its permit/license. In that case, it would go straight to the Supremes, not stopping at GO and no collecting $200.

      The trick is getting the Court right, then finding a state with courage.

  15. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    If by some miracle a national reciprocity bill passes which that will be great, but given all the turmoil on so many other major issues that Congress will move on the second Barrack Hussein Obama is no longer POTUS, it’s probably a tad bit over optimistic to expect Republican members of Congress to exert much of an effort to force the legislation through.

    1. avatar Julius Corrino says:

      In the end, the success of this piece of legislation is not up to GOP Congress members anyway. There are now 52 Republican Senators in the 115th U.S. Congress. It is quite uncertain that even they would all vote for NCCRA en bloc.

      In order to avert NCCRA’s death by filibuster (which should be certain), however, an additional eight of the Democratic/independent Senators would have to weigh in with their Ayes. Assuming that ALL of the red Senate members are OK with that bill (which I doubt), that is. Where are those people to be found?

      NCCRA has a snowballs’ chance in hell of getting passed. And that is a good thing. The Federal Government enforcing the obtention of permission slips prior to exercising a fundamental, constitutionally protected right is wrong and highly dangerous.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        The Federal Government enforcing the obtention of permission slips prior to exercising a fundamental, constitutionally protected right is wrong and highly dangerous.

        Federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses does no such thing.

        Constitutional carry states can go on happily being constitutional carry, and would not have to require their residents to obtain a carry license merely as a result of federal reciprocity. Such states could optionally provide their residents a carry license for reciprocity purposes (which is how most constitutional carry states operate, and how Indiana will, if HB 1159 passes).

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          What he’s saying is exactly what will be maintained by Schumer, Pelosi, et al.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        You do realize that your concerns about the voting pattern in the Senate applies to every piece of legislation, right?

        It’s going to be an interesting, but ultimately unfruitful two years.

  16. avatar Ingot says:

    Fortunately, if it saves a penny on the budget (say, by cutting donut expenses at the ATF) it can be passed with budget reconciliation. That only takes a simple majority in the Senate.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      – The new “national reciprocity” bill would require all states to recognize the […]

      Right here. This is why I am skeptical. Gun control legislation and regulation all “require”.

  17. avatar LarryD says:

    OK, thinking about Impeaching members of the Supreme Court, there actually is cause, Congress has always had the authority to exclude matters from SCOTUS review Article 3, Section 2, clause 2 “… In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Congress exercised that power when it passed new laws regarding “detainees”, but SCOUTS ignored that and butt in anyway. Every Supreme Court Judge who agreed to take that case is themselves guilty of violating the Constitution, that is certainly grounds for their Impeachment.

    Of course, that’s going to require that a majority of the House and Senate have the stomach to stand up to SCOTUS when it has plainly overstepped its authority, and reassert Congresses own authority. The Progressives will go ballistic.

    I also think, should Congress revisit the issues of dealing with captured hostile combatants, that it should explicitly state that such cases are not only not a matter for civilian courts, but belong to the jurisdiction of military courts.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      No member of Congress has the courage to join any attempt to rein-in the Supreme Court. In the public’s mind, the Court is the last resort to get results they cannot get via Congress. Where is the political upside to disabusing the ignorant?

  18. avatar Aaron says:

    Everyone bows at the alter of the State when it benefits their cause. National reciprocity is a violation of the core concepts of Federalism. To see so many self-declared ‘Patriots’ eager for the Federal government to violate the 10th Amendment is incredibly disheartening. Is this the best that your average NRA member can muster?

    “F*ck the 10th Amendment….etc”

    Apparently, that IS, in fact, the best we have to offer……….embarrassing.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      There is no conflict with federalism or with the tenth amendment.

      Under the second amendment, reinforced by the fourteenth amendment, and explicitly affirmed in MacDonald v City of Chicago , the several states do not have authority to violate the right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        And?

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Ah must say, suh, when it comes to achieving mah goals, “whatever works”. And this is justified by the simple truth that whatever method I use or support is legitimate, because I am always on the side of the angels.

      It is only when those nattering nabobs of negativism and Leftist infection attempt to subvert states’ rights that we must protest, resist and call upon the gods of war to scatter the unrighteous !!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email