Quote of the Day: The Argument Against National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

“Opponents argue that national reciprocity would enable the least restrictive requirements to apply to the entire country, thus undercutting the most stringent laws in some states. Although there are differences between the House and Senate versions, each has the base goal of nullifying a large number of state laws and making it difficult for law enforcement officers to determine when they can enforce their state’s laws, says Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney for the Law Center (to Prevent Gun Violence).” – Guns in America: What Is National Concealed Carry Reciprocity? [via newsweek.com]

comments

  1. avatar Tim says:

    “…..the least restrictive requirements to apply to the entire country….”

    Yup. Kind of like immigration, marriage, welfare, drivers’ licenses, legal licenses, medical licenses, etc, etc, etc. We’ve done this before.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      National Reciprocity is a temporary workaround solution for a problem that shouldn’t exist, but its nothing like the things you’ve mentioned. There is no federal law requiring states to honor other states’ driver’s licenses, licenses to practice law, welfare, etc. National Reciprocity isn’t just an agreement between states, as many of the things you have mentioned are. It is a federal law telling one state they have to accept the law of another state. That’s a very different thing.

      1. avatar binder says:

        Better yet
        No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Privileges are meant to be regulated and obstructed by the authority granting it.

        2. Point of clarification. Rights are enumerated not granted, and the right of the *people* shall no be infringed (unless due process of law deprives liberty).

          So any one existing in the US should have a right to keep and bare.

      2. avatar Omer Baker says:

        I’ve often said to make reciprocity hinged for all licenses. So pro rights states like Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi could cut off the North East from the West Coast by not honoring drivers licenses if anti rights states don’t honor CCW’s.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          Ok, that will work

        2. avatar AngryAz says:

          Works for me

        3. avatar binder says:

          Sorry, forgot the purple, I was being sarcastic. Any really think it will work?

        4. avatar Ranger Rick says:

          States also grant licences to practice law and medicine which can further complicate matters if all licences are in play.

      3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Correct, a federal law is not the way to fix this problem. The real solution is for SCOTUS to finally discover that phrase at the end of the 2nd Amendment, ‘shall not be infringed’. All these laws are blatant violations of the Constitution. What good is a federal law?

        1. avatar kenneth says:

          But even though all of that is true, never forget that statutes(unlike laws) are always a bargaining chip. IF reciprocity looks like it might pass, despite the way that NY and etc. will freak, it could always be bargained away for something else, like repeal of some or all of the NFA.
          This would be actual compromise, unlike all the gun control ‘compromises’ the NRA have been agreeing to for decades, wherein the other side just doesn’t get EVERYTHING they want… at least not YET. This is incrementalism, not compromise. Yet this has been the drill pretty much since ’68 at the federal level. So long that many have forgotten what compromise is.
          Compromise is when BOTH sides give up something, but in return BOTH sides also GAIN something. Can anyone remember a single time when a federal gun control bill ever passed by ‘compromise’, and the POTG actually GAINED anything in return? What might that gain have been?

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          So threatening to diminish one set of unconstitutional laws could become a bargaining chip toward diminishing another set of unconstitutional laws… Hmmm…. It’s kind of like a robber taking your wallet but then deciding to give you back $10 of your money – see, you both get something out of the deal – compromise!

      4. avatar Big Bill says:

        You are absolutely right, these are very different things.
        “… immigration, marriage, welfare, drivers’ licenses, legal licenses, medical licenses, etc, etc, etc….” are all privileges, not rights.
        Yet they are all recognized between states.
        Why is it that a right, protected by the constitution, and even saying “shall not be infringed,” is not so recognized?
        I honestly see some of the arguments against, but this one is a fail. If mere privileges are universal, why aren’t rights?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Medical and legal licenses are not “recognized by all states.” Doctors must be separately licensed in each state in which they practice, as do lawyers. Lawyers, if admitted to at least one federal court, should be able to practice in all other federal courts, but the Federal District court in Virginia requires a Virginia law license to appear in federal court (unless the lawyer is a federal government employee. Cute.) Lawyers can seek to be admitted “pro hac vice” for the purpose of appearing in a specific case in another jurisdiction, and that occurs regularly but does require a court order.

          I believe that doctors may only issue prescriptions for the states in which they are licensed, even though it is a federal license when it comes to narcotics and other scheduled drugs. It is a violation of law for a doctor (other than perhaps in an emergency??) to practice medicine in a jurisdiction where he/she is not licensed.

          Marriage licenses are only good in the state in which they are issued, and a marriage celebrant must be licensed in the state in which the service is performed. Hence, “by the power invested in me by the State of …, I hereby pronounce you…” The resulting marriage is recognized in all states.

      5. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Reciprocity for all those items began with the “Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act” of the ’30s or ’40s, states were requiring new drivers’ licenses, auto registration, inspection, etc every time a serviceman moved to another state during training to go die in a foreign war, give me my MONEY, and Congress put an end to it. Eventually others complained to the states enough that they went to a requirement to switch everything after a certain time, usually 6 months as I recall. But the federal government DID have something to do with it.

      6. avatar Ing says:

        The problem shouldn’t exist — because this patchwork of state-level civil-rights restrictions is unconstitutional.

        http://constitution.findlaw.com/article4.html

        The Constitution gives the federal government ample authority to force the states to abide by the full faith and credit clause.

  2. avatar Rich K. says:

    Of course, the politicians making the argument for “states’ rights to make their own gun laws” are the same ones who, 157 years ago, would have been arguing in favor of state’ rights to keep slaves (and most of them belong to the same party that made that argument back then, too…)

    1. avatar Bosko says:

      Four months ago, these anti’s were drooling at the thought that the gun roundups would be getting into high gear right about now. Imagine the mental and physical angst they must be going through. May their hemorrhoid swell up and throb.

  3. avatar Oliver says:

    “…making it difficult for law enforcement officers to determine when they can enforce their state’s laws, says…” On the contrary, wouldn’t it now make it simpler for law enforcement to enforce the law if the law of the land simply unequivocally states, that unless you are on a list of proscribed persons, you are good to go?

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      As if those “lists” can prevent real criminals from getting and carrying guns, or other weapons. The government/cops can’t even prevent people in max security prison from making or obtaining deadly weapons, including guns. Epic fail.

      And just whom do you suppose makes those lists anyway? Oh yeah… The folks who, generally, already want to disarm everyone. Fail again.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        I think you missed the point of the article.
        The federal law would mean that the federal “lists” would determine who can legally own a gun. (Note, I said “legally.” This isn’t a gun control law, so it would have no effect on who can “illegally” get or posses a gun.)
        The list, at present, pretty much includes those convicted of crimes that carry a max sentence of more than a year, domestic violence crimes, and DV orders of protection, and those who were involuntarily committed to a mental health institution. That’s pretty much it. And for good reason. States wouldn’t be able to make their own lists, so your post doesn’t really address the situation.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sentence structure police, here. Your post currently says that those convicted of crimes that carry a max sentence of more than a year, domestic violence crimes, and DV orders of protection, and those who were involuntarily committed to a mental health institution, would be on the federal list of who *CAN LEGALLY* own a gun. I don’t think so.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          Okay, what I meant to say is the list decides who can and cannot legally own a gun.
          If you’re on the bad list, you can’t legally own a gun.
          Thanks.

        3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          The argument is AGAINST this national reciprocity bill. MY argument against it is the “prohibited person” limit mentioned by the person I replied to. My point is that these “lists” are totally illegitimate to start with, and that the same non-voluntary government you are asking for reciprocity decides who is on it, what is considered a “crime” and they can ratchet those up to any level they wish – at any time.

          My other problem with this is that it will be just so much easier, with this, to require some sort of Federal “license” for everyone, destroying the progress that has been made for “permit-less” carry in states like mine.

          Do you really want the feds to decide who can and can’t defend themselves? If you give them an inch, they will take ten miles. And then as much more as possible.

    2. avatar kenneth says:

      So a gun control ‘tard has gotten it bassackwards? Well color me shocked…
      /sarc… obviously

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      If you agree that the same government the Second Amendment was intended to protect you from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce lists of persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of their lists?

      Cliff H

    4. avatar Mark N. says:

      Even easier. If you have a CCW, you are good to go in all 50 states, at least for the purpose of bearing arms. What is so difficult about that?

  4. avatar No one of consequence says:

    And this is bad because of course concealed carry permit holders are among the most lawless, thuggish, criminally active people in the country. (Eyeroll)

  5. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

    Raw meat for breakfast?…This is too easy. I’ll pass. Blueberry pancakes with strawberry maple compote go better with my coffee.

  6. avatar Mike J says:

    Congress could obviate any problems by creating a federal handgun license. In any event, I don’t worry about national reciprocity much because my Texas license enables me to be legally armed in any state worth visiting.

    1. avatar binder says:

      A better compromise would be to set standards for State Issued Licence that would qualify for national reciprocity. And such licences would NOT require residency.

    2. avatar Baldwin says:

      You want the feds (Pelosi, Schumer, Fienberg, ad nauseum) licensing your right to bear arms?????

      1. avatar binder says:

        I would prefer the Mormons do it (Utah) or any other state. But just set a national standard for the licences that would work for national reciprocity.

      2. avatar Mike J says:

        I’d prefer Constitutional carry, but I doubt that we’ll get that any time soon. Handgun license reciprocity applies only to three or four percent of the population, so the states have done a pretty good job of restricting the right anyway.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          Where did this come from? Most states have reprocity with each other.

        2. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Binder, I think Mike’s point is that most of the states’ licensing schemes keep all but the most dedicated citizens (those who are willing to jump through the hoops and pay money to exercise their rights) from carrying already. So reciprocity, however it is achieved, only applies to a small minority of the population, as the vast majority of Americans choose to be (or have been forcibly) disarmed in their day-to-day lives.

        3. avatar binder says:

          OK, I already piss enough people off here as it is, but this one is going to get a response.
          I think that everyone that is not under direct court supervision should have the ability to carry arms.
          I think that anyone who lacks the training to carry said arms reasonably and safely should NOT carry arms.
          Until training becomes the standard for raising children (alongside literacy), licencing may not be the worse idea in the world.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          “OK, I already piss enough people off here as it is, but this one is going to get a response.
          I think that everyone that is not under direct court supervision should have the ability to carry arms.
          I think that anyone who lacks the training to carry said arms reasonably and safely should NOT carry arms.
          Until training becomes the standard for raising children (alongside literacy), licencing may not be the worse idea in the world.”
          If people get pissed because they can’t see any side to a discussion other than their own, they can’t take a joke.

          What you propose (training as a requirement to carry) is, IMO, unconstitutional. As unconstitutional as requiring a civics class before being allowed to vote.
          And, to listen to the Dems, voting is far more dangerous than carrying guns.

        5. avatar Stinkeye says:

          It kind of depends on your definition of “training”, doesn’t it? The safest shooters I know are generally people who were raised around guns from an early age and have never had a “formal” training class in their lives. There are plenty of idiots out there running around who have taken multiple classes from self-appointed “gun gurus” but somehow can’t even remember to keep their damn finger off the trigger until it’s time to shoot the thing.

    3. avatar JDS says:

      Yeah they could pass a national voter licence as well. No license no vote. Oh and charge a reasonable say $200 a year fee as well.
      I want all government to respect the original intent of the second amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.
      No licensing, no fees, no government involvement.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        I’m all with you, but I’m not holding my breath.

      2. avatar Baldwin says:

        Pay to vote??? Am I the only one to see all of the fail and wrong in this?

      3. avatar NEIOWA says:

        Limited to title holders of Real Property who have repaid all transfer/welfare payments they may have received.

    4. avatar Demo Man says:

      Mike J- “Congress could obviate any problems by creating a federal handgun license.”

      Yes, it would be great to have a federal license when the FBI conducts a full secret clearance style background check, like ringing your neighbors’ doorbell, plus mandatory on-demand alcohol breathalyzer and blood draw for licensees from any cop who demands it at traffic accidents. When your license get suspended due to police objection, fly to Washington D.C. for a hearing with ATF to get reinstated. Where do I sign up?

      “In any event, I don’t worry about national reciprocity much because my Texas license enables me to be legally armed in any state worth visiting.”

      Translation: I don’t really care, because I never leave the county I grew up in. Besides, “everyone knows me around here” and I’m “one of the good guys.”

      Legal analysis of complex interstate legislation from Larry the Cable Guy. Now we know why NRA doesn’t go broke.

      1. avatar HP says:

        This is all Todd Vandermyde’s fault.

      2. avatar Mike J says:

        I had envisioned licensing requirements similar to those that most states have already imposed on us. You submitted to a background check for your state handgun license, assuming that you have one, didn’t you? And you submitted to fingerprinting, didn’t you? I can’t imagine that Congress would make it much more difficult than that, and certainly not as difficult as you seem to think, if Congress were to consider the matter at all. I can’t imagine that the FBI would be willing to do anything but check for warrants, which is what NICS does for most handgun purchases.

        Actually, I take two or three long road trips each year. I merely avoid the Left Coast, Nevada, the Northeast, and the People’s Republics of Illinois and Minnesota. As I said, I can be legally armed almost anywhere worth going. I certainly have no illusions about being treated as a “good guy” by police should I be involved in a defensive shooting anywhere in this country.

        In any case, handgun licensees are less than four per cent of the population. It seems likely, therefore, that Congress will let any national reciprocity bills die in committee, as most bills do. This discussion is probably moot.

        I’ll certainly stipulate that one of us has the mentality of Larry the Cable Guy.

        1. avatar Demo Man says:

          Mike J- “I had envisioned licensing requirements similar to those that most states have already imposed on us.”

          Yes, any reciprocity or federalized carry bill passed by Congress will be a simple two-page deal. Kind of like the zoning code in your local one-horse town. Congress will use simple common sense and make it easy for you, sort of like applying for a driveway permit.

          “I can’t imagine that Congress would make it much more difficult than that, and certainly not as difficult as you seem to think…”

          Right, any proposed national reciprocity bill will not blow up to a hundred pages like Obamacare after police unions and NRA lobbyists stick their snouts into the legislation. If the bill is passed, no restrictions will ever be added, and it will just get better, not worse. Like how your taxes go down, not up, over time.

          “I can’t imagine that the FBI would be willing to do anything but check for warrants, which is what NICS does for most handgun purchases.”

          Right, I’m sure that state and local police are not developing background information on licensed citizens from the almost unlimited privacy waivers incorporated in most state’s concealed carry laws. If those citizens are politically active Tea Party members, I’m sure that information is not being forwarded to the local fusion centers to share with the feds. The G is there to look out for you, sort of like FDR and his fireside chats.

          “I merely avoid the Left Coast, Nevada, the Northeast, and the People’s Republics of Illinois and Minnesota. As I said, I can be legally armed almost anywhere worth going.”

          If it weren’t for the flag wavers and simpletons, NRA would go broke tomorrow.

    5. avatar Cliff H says:

      Allowing the government to set the standards for a permission slip to exercise your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right(s) is a GUARANTEE that at some point those rights will be abused and/or lost.

      There was/is a very good reason why the Second Amendment states unequivocably: “…shall not be infringed.”

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        “Allowing the government to set the standards for a permission slip to exercise your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right(s) is a GUARANTEE that at some point those rights will be abused and/or lost.

        There was/is a very good reason why the Second Amendment states unequivocably: “…shall not be infringed.””

        And you are correct.
        But, in the world we live in, our federal government is not going to pass a preemptive law saying anyone who wants to can buy and carry a gun.
        Just not gonna happen.
        SCOTUS has already said, in Heller, that conditions and limits can be set.
        Reality intrudes into a perfect world.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          The whole point of the Second Amendment is that at some point OUR REALITY may need to intrude upon their “perfect” world.

          How and when that point arrives, they seem to be working VERY hard to find out.

          And just because Scalia said it and four other justices sort of agreed, does not make it gospel or carved in stone. Nor does it make it correct. I seem to recall that on more than one occasion the SCOTUS has been found to have made very bad decisions. To give them the power to be the very last word on interpretation of the Constitution with no recourse for redress would give 5 men the power to change this country forever. That was certainly not the intent of the Founding Fathers.

  7. avatar MauiMatt says:

    No. No. No. It is not the job of the citizen to understand every state’s intricate gun laws; that’s the job of law enforcement. National reciprocity enables the citizens the freedom to exercise their constitutional right outside their home-state boarders without fear of running afoul the law. Period.

    The way I’ve read the versions of the bills, citizens of a state would have to be licensed by their own state; one would not be able to acquire a license in another state to circumvent state laws.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      Not only that but it should actually simplify things because LEOs don’t have to worry about how the laws change as they change locations.

    2. avatar Parnell says:

      Cornyn’s bill reads like your interpretation. Hudson’s allows non-resident licensees to carry in any state, including their restrictive home states.

  8. avatar YAR0892 says:

    Rights vs priviledges. Drivers licenses allow one to experience the priviledge of driving and are good in all 50 states and territories. Firearms ownership and carriage is a fundamental, God-given, Constitutionally-enshrined Right, not a priviledge. If I have gone through the legal process to obtain both cards- driving and carry permits- then what authority does any state have to curtail either of those permits? Quite simply, they legally shouldn’t actually have a leg to stand on. There’s no cogent argument against a national permit to carry. All the state laws concerning where weapons may be carried- at least in the States I’ve got permits from, see also: Free States- are nearly the same across the board. The training requirements- a class and optional qualification with a weapon- are similar for most states. Very few if any CWP holders have ever been convicted of a firearms crime, except potentially carrying in a state without reciprocity. Legally, there’s no argument to be made. State’s rights? Those went out the hatch in 1865 when Reconstruction started and were further put asunder when the Senate was ruled to be elected by popular vote and no longer represent the State itself.

  9. avatar Rick the Bear (MA to NH) says:

    “News”week? After their issue titled “Machine Gun USA” circa 1980, they should be calling themselves “Agendaweek” or Prognews”.

  10. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    What license or permit did the founding fathers have when they convened and brought their weapons?
    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

  11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    …and making it difficult for law enforcement officers to determine when they can enforce their state’s laws…

    Since when do police officers enforce laws regarding licensing requirements?

    From a police officer’s perspective, a person either does or does not possess a license issued by that person’s state of residence – and that determination is the sum-total of the officer’s enforcement responsibility.

    To that end, federally mandated reciprocity actually facilitates the average police officer’s responsibilities, by removing the byzantine inter-state reciprocity landscape. Officers no longer would have to keep track of the list of states for which licenses are recognized by his own state, and the continual changes to that list.

  12. avatar Freddy Ramone says:

    If a Drivers license and a Marriage License have to be honored in all states, then so short a Concealed Carry License. Marrying and Driving are privileges, Carry a Gun is a right under the second amendment.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “If a Drivers license and a Marriage License have to be honored in all states”,
      There is no federal law mandating this.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        I seem to remember a Supreme Court case and accompanying firestorm over the whole (definition of) marriage thing.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Very different thing. It stated that all 50 states must recognize same sex marriage, but did not mandate that one state had to recognize another state’s marriage license. As far as I know, all state’s do, but it’s not because there is a federal law mandating it.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          State’s do not recognize each other’s marriage licenses; l rather they recognize any marriage validly performed under the laws of another state. So if you get a Texas marriage license, you have to get married by a Texas licensed marriage celebrant. But once lawfully married, your marriage is recognized as valid in all 50 states. Picky, I know, but that’s the way it works.

      2. avatar kevin says:

        Under the constitution, we have the right to travel freely among all 50 states. Failing to recognize other states drivers licenses or marriages would chill people’s exercise of that right.

        One key could be SCOTUS striking state laws that fail to recognize the CCW permits of other states.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Under the constitution, we have the right to travel freely among all 50 states.”
          True, as far as it goes.
          We have that right. However, just as the first amendment guarantees your right to free speech, but doesn’t guarantee you a forum to exercise that right, the constitution does not guarantee you any mode of transportation to do that travel. So far, travel by public road (usually meaning normal POV – Privately Owned Vehicle) is pretty safely guaranteed, as long as you meet a state’s rules for licensing as a driver and ownership of the vehicle. However, your right to travel by plane is currently at the whim of some faceless bureaucrats who determine which list you belong on, with no due process, no easily used method for getting off said lists,and no accountability for those who manage the lists.
          But that right to travel isn’t offered with a “shall not be infringed” part, while the right to keep and bear arms is.
          That is why, IMO, reciprocity needs to be done right, meaning is should be able to withstand the inevitable SCOTUS test. Will some compromise of the two bills currently in the front running positions be that bill? I don’t know.

  13. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    I was going to read the article but all I got was a Brow nells ad, so I gave up.

    1. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

      If you select the “Concealed Carry” link that’s what happens. Select the bracketed Newsweek.com link instead.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Yes, I know. It was more of a comment on the fact that 80% of the text on this site is shaded in blue and links to Brow nells. Kind of silly and possibly counterproductive.

  14. avatar Stu in AZ says:

    When an officer in New Jersey pulls someone from Vermont over for speeding, he’s not going to consider towing their vehicle merely for possessing an out of state driver’s license.
    It shouldn’t be hard for officers to decide when they can or can’t take away the gun belonging to an out of state licensed carrier. Were they using the firearm illegally, or not?

  15. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    “… each has the base goal of nullifying a large number of UNCONSTITUTIONAL state laws…”

    You left a word out. I fixed it for ya.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      Unfortunately, neither you, not I, nor anyone else here has the power to actually make that stick.
      More’s the shame.

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    MEH…comment of the day.

  17. avatar Bosko says:

    Persons with CCW licenses are ALREADY registered and approved — those folks are now known by their states to likely be gun possessors. I would think the liberal states would welcome such a database.
    Even the weakest state requirements include background checks, while the “stronger” state requirements are generally aimed at barring even decent law-abiding citizens from obtaining a license, they amount to defacto bans.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Many liberal states, such as NY, NJ, Hawaii and California, (and D.C.) have gun registration regimes, so they know who all the people are who legally possess firearms; adding a list of CCW holders adds nothing. Moreover, each of these places, being controlled by liberals, is absolutely convinced of the proposition that “more guns =more gun crime,” and that therefore there is an important public policy in limiting the number of firearms in public. That is why in these places “may issue” means essentially “no issue.”

      1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

        Actually it’s “…. Liberal states, such as NY, NJ, Hawaii and California, (and D.C.) have gun registration regimes, so they know who all the people are who legally possess firearms ……. each of these places … controlled by Liberals, is absolutely convinced of the proposition that “more guns = the ability of the populace to finally take a stand and overthrow the tyrants both oppressing them and denying them, the citizens, their Constitutionally-guaranteed Rights” … therefore it is an imperative that a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation, accompanying legislation, and public policy be maintained to limit the number of firearms held by the public in order to protect the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats from the wrath of citizens. That is why in these places “may issue” means essentially “no issue.”

  18. avatar Burley says:

    We The People must hold the government accountable, not the other way around.
    It is NOT a “privilege” to drive, it is a right:
    https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/

    Bearing arms is spelled out in the Constitution and absolutely no compromise should be tolerated.
    SO, when the authot of the article is quoted as saying “the least restrictive requirements to apply to the entire country”, we should resoundingly reply: “Yes, that is the purpose of America, and its Constitution.”

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      I read that link, and several others, and I missed the part about a state not being able to require a license to drive.
      Could you point it out to me?
      If you are going to say, “Well, it’s obvious from the context,” then why do voters need to be registered?
      And please, don’t say “they shouldn’t.” That’s a cop-out. We, as a society with democratic elections, must have a way to ensure one man one vote.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      “Creative” construction of language in a decision is not a substitute for good legal analysis. The Supreme Court has held no such thing, though I have often seen this nonsense repeated as if it were fact. Merely having a right to travel does not mean you have the right to travel by car and without a driver’s license. You can take a bus, a train, a horse, or just walk. The one fact that is true is that you do not need a driver’s license to operate a vehicle on private property, nor does that vehicle have to be licensed.

    3. avatar Mike Betts says:

      Burley – I think you may want to read this and reconsider the bum advice you’re peddling, lest someone believe it and get themselves in a jam. http://www.snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/

  19. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    “Opponents argue that national reciprocity would enable the least restrictive requirements to apply to the entire country, thus undercutting the most stringent laws in some states.”

    Sigh. If only we didn’t have that dratted 2nd Amendment, things would be so much easier . . .

  20. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    “…making it difficult for law enforcement officers to determine when they can enforce their state’s laws…”

    Um, care to elaborate? They check for a license. Have one? Good to go. Don’t? Go to jail. Easy peezy.

    Enforcing laws is supposed to be black and white, lady. Not sure if you would know that though, your side usually thinks ACA should be enforced but immigration laws shouldn’t.

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    It doesn’t matter one little bit what the requirements for national reciprocity might be.

    If national recognition of a state’s license required 24 hours of training, a perfect score on a range test of 3000 rounds and a prostate exam, the Demtard left would still be against it.

    They hate us and they hate our guns. And I hate them right back.

  22. avatar K Maiden says:

    More liberal blah blah. It never ends with these fools. Seeing how many have already taken my thunder, that’s all folks.

  23. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

    Actually. The States with the least stringent laws, i.e., those that allow permitless carry, won’t be able to carry in non permitless carry States because they won’t have a permit to show.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “Actually. The States with the least stringent laws, i.e., those that allow permitless carry, won’t be able to carry in non permitless carry States because they won’t have a permit to show.”

      Here in AZ, we have permitless carry.
      We also have a CCW license available, with just a 4-hour class.
      I don’t know, but I’d bet other states that allow permitless carry also have CCW licenses available.

    2. avatar Rich K. says:

      The House version of the bill has a proviso that allows people from Constitutional Carry states to show their driver’s license instead of a carry permit.

  24. avatar Bob301 says:

    I work with attorneys every day, and it always amazes me when they throw around their title like it actually means something. “senior attorney for the Law Center (to Prevent Gun Violence)” tells me that she is one step away from the most prevalent job title for an attorney — unemployed.

    “national reciprocity would enable the least restrictive requirements to apply to the entire country, thus undercutting the most stringent laws in some states” — So what! Those stringent laws are in areas with the highest crime rates, and nearly everyone who commits crimes with guns is a prohibited person. Those stringent laws have done nothing to reduce crime. It is easy, however, to conclude that those stringent laws have led to making honest citizens easier prey to these criminals.

    1. avatar Icabod says:

      She writes this as if it was a bad thing.

  25. avatar NEIOWA says:

    Man the progs have some homely (and ignorant) women. Does all their pot substitute for beer googles?

  26. avatar BDub says:

    That’s the thing about Rights – they should have the least restrictive requirements applied to them across the entire country.

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