[RottnJP]

I have mixed feelings on it too. I the one hand, I want it, and think that it is, at least based on my reading, permissible based on "full faith and credit."

"Article IV
Section 1.

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.
Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

To me, that's the applicable section of the Constitution. It's got to be based on that, and anchored to the premise that it is the states' legislation which is the governing body of law, and the U.S. law is preventing undue abridgement of one's rights when traveling in another state. Using that, you could probably stretch the commerce clause to permit it as well.

The thing that worries me, as others have mentioned, is the tendency of legislation to be twisted and abused. What to me is designed to prevent abridgement of my rights when I travel could to Hillary be an opening, as I think we all agree: "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." That *should* mean that the states' laws can be *more* permissive than the Fed's, but not *less.*

But we all know that the Fed willfully bribes the states into compliance using our own money, a la highway dollars, anti-crime dollars, anti-terrorism dollars, etc.

But here's the kicker, and ultimately why I *think* (right now, anyway) I'd vote for national reciprocity... The Fed can already pass legislation trampling on the RtKBA and using the Federal coffers to get compliance from those who are willing to let themselves be bribed... It's really just us, the good guys we can elect, and the NRA's lobbying power, that prevent that from happening already. So I guess we might as well get something good out of it while we can.

[RottnJP]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

I think we have that now as a result of the Heller and the McDonald cases.

Dave, did you miss your Wheaties this morning? You know as well as I do that a court case is nothing but a precedent. There's no law until the legislative branch makes one.

[Oso]

Yep, that is what national reciprocity would mean.

Originally Posted by snubfan

So if I have a permit from a "shall issue" state, does a "may issue" state (like New York) have to accept my permit and allow me to carry even though they deny most of their own citizens that right?







.

[David Armstrong]

Originally Posted by RottnJP

Dave, did you miss your Wheaties this morning? You know as well as I do that a court case is nothing but a precedent. There's no law until the legislative branch makes one.

Don't think I said anything about the court case being a law. Heller and McDonald spelled out and affirmed the 2nd amendment as a right, which was the core of the statement. But FWIW, case law certainly is law. It is not statutory law, but it is considered a form of law none the less.

[RottnJP]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

Don't think I said anything about the court case being a law. Heller and McDonald spelled out and affirmed the 2nd amendment as a right, which was the core of the statement. But FWIW, case law certainly is law. It is not statutory law, but it is considered a form of law none the less.

O.K., yeah, I guess it depends on the semantics of "law." From a practical standpoint, "case law" = "precedent." If I get picked up in D.C. with a pistol in my car, I can talk about Heller all I want, I'm still spending the night (at least) in jail.

If the only statutory laws in place don't permit what I'm doing, the law isn't on my side, and it won't be until (a) the statutory law is changed or (b) the judiciary strikes it down.

That's the valid comparison with national reciprocity- The law doesn't say I can do it, so referencing the Heller case is not relevant to the legality of carrying across state lines.

[codecowboy]

Originally Posted by glock30user

As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.

Agreed. That is exactly what is bothering me.

[J_Rico]

Like many, I have mixed feelings about this. I would love to see such reciprocity, but imposition by the Feds seems a violation of state's rights. IMO state's rights are the more important of these two issues.

Another viewpoint might be that this is helping restore those rights being abridged by certain states. The 2A rights of citizens have been limited by some states. This law would be removing some of that limitation.

After all, if New York enacted a law tomorrow requiring a one hour delay for broadcast news and a 1 day delay for print media, to allow censorship of the news, what would be the reaction? Would people condemn this attack on the 1A or stand up for New York's state rights?

[David Armstrong]

Originally Posted by RottnJP

O.K., yeah, I guess it depends on the semantics of "law." From a practical standpoint, "case law" = "precedent." If I get picked up in D.C. with a pistol in my car, I can talk about Heller all I want, I'm still spending the night (at least) in jail.

True, as regards Heller specifically. If, however, there is case law that says the police cannot do that, then you probably get to avoid that even if there is a statute prohibiting it.

If the only statutory laws in place don't permit what I'm doing, the law isn't on my side, and it won't be until (a) the statutory law is changed or (b) the judiciary strikes it down.

Yes, both have the same practical effect and are considered law.

That's the valid comparison with national reciprocity- The law doesn't say I can do it, so referencing the Heller case is not relevant to the legality of carrying across state lines.

Perhaps, but again, the statement did not address carrying across state lines, the statement specifically referenced "How about instead of this we get a law spelling out and reaffirming the 2nd amendment as a right," which Heller and McDonald certainly did.

[Donn57]

Originally Posted by kensteele

You mean like National Parks Carry?

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.

[Gunnut 45/454]

snubfan
I agree 100%! National Constitutional carry is all thats needed! Get the government out of it at all levels!

[TBO]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

Issues like this reveal who really believes in rights and who just wants to get their way regardless of the cost.

The same people that bemoan an overreaching federal Govt. when that Govt. does something they don't like suddenly become ardent Federalists when that same govt. will give them what they want.

This is too often ignored.

[David Armstrong]

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454

snubfan
I agree 100%! National Constitutional carry is all thats needed! Get the government out of it at all levels!

LOL!! You do realize that "National Constitutional Carry" is based on government control at all levels....or maybe you don't!

[dogchild]

Originally Posted by snubfan

What about when the .gov starts throwing in a few "common sense" requirements or blanket restrictions. How would you like a national ten round mag limit or no carry of those "cop killer" hollow points? No church carry?(Which is a restiction in my state but not in all.) National age requirement of 23 to get a permit.(like Missouri, I believe) Just a few here to start but I'm sure we could come up with more.

If you want to push for something at the national level, push for National Constitutional Carry.

Great point, and i agree it sould be left to the States

[Toorop]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

LOL!! You do realize that "National Constitutional Carry" is based on government control at all levels....or maybe you don't!

I agree. Then I could open carry my M4 with attached 203 to the local park to watch the little league games in safety and see my nephews play. And I could have my bayonet attached while I walk through the mall and shop for my girlfriend at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I'd never have to worry about what the antis think!

[Sam Spade]

I'm in with RottnJP. This is an issue of states recognizing each others' decisions and extending the same privileges to travellers as they do to their own. No one says that the visitor can ignore any restriction that the local has to obey. And for states like IL and WI, there's no requirement to allow any carry for anyone.

And, yes, it's a federal issue precisely because it deals with travel and commerce between the states.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by Toorop

I agree. Then I could open carry my M4 with attached 203 to the local park to watch the little league games in safety and see my nephews play. And I could have my bayonet attached while I walk through the mall and shop for my girlfriend at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I'd never have to worry about what the antis think!

Now, you know you can't start talking about that without pictures.

Where are the pics?! A link to pics in another thread would be great

[RottnJP]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

This abomination pases and you can expect in a few years they will amend it. To "standardize" carry requirements like training etc. Then before long it will have it's own bureaucracy whose only purpose is to promulgate rules and regulations whether they are needed or not.

I would totally agree with you IF we were talking about nationalized CCW scheme. That would be a train wreck waiting to happen, and would be a violation of the states' rights.

But basing national legislation on "full faith and credit" is different- In that case, any federal restrictions might impact the reciprocity piece of the issue, but would not supercede the states' legislation. So, for example, let's say nat'l reciprocity passes, then Hillary is elected President, and decides to F with it. At worst, the fed could tack on rules that make the federal reciprocity useless. None of that would impact state residents abiding by their own states regulations.

In fact, later federal abuse of a law based on full faith and credit could even be ignored by states which have undertaken their own reciprocity agreements, because at no time would the nat'l legislation have greater force than the states- It would simply be there to protect the "minimum rights" as congress understands them at any given point in time.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by RottnJP

In fact, later federal abuse of a law based on full faith and credit could even be ignored by states which have undertaken their own reciprocity agreements, because at no time would the nat'l legislation have greater force than the states- It would simply be there to protect the "minimum rights" as congress understands them at any given point in time.

Then how does it ever have an effect?

[kensteele]

Originally Posted by RottnJP

I would totally agree with you IF we were talking about nationalized CCW scheme. That would be a train wreck waiting to happen, and would be a violation of the states' rights.

But basing national legislation on "full faith and credit" is different- In that case, any federal restrictions might impact the reciprocity piece of the issue, but would not supercede the states' legislation. So, for example, let's say nat'l reciprocity passes, then Hillary is elected President, and decides to F with it. At worst, the fed could tack on rules that make the federal reciprocity useless. None of that would impact state residents abiding by their own states regulations.

In fact, later federal abuse of a law based on full faith and credit could even be ignored by states which have undertaken their own reciprocity agreements, because at no time would the nat'l legislation have greater force than the states- It would simply be there to protect the "minimum rights" as congress understands them at any given point in time.

Are you saying that even after National Reciprocity passes, California could still continue to not recognise a UT license because CA has a state law that says no permit from other than CA shall be recognised...?

[RottnJP]

O.K., I guess I didn't say it right- I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know all the right words- It does impact the states laws in the sense of what that article of the Constitution says- Individual states can't abridge the rights of other states residents.

So a CA law saying "we don't play" would be illegal. The law would be saying that states have to let other states' residents play by the "home" state's rules, if that makes sense. (So you might have to know that if you're traveling to MA, you'd better have a couple 10 round mags handy, and put your evil full size mags in the trunk... I would think CCW-travelers would have to be very careful to "study up" before hitting the road for another state.)

But the courts would likely get involved in determining what is a "reasonable" restriction, just like they do now, with a state that chooses to put an unreasonably onerous restriction in place. Kind of like the Fed saying poll taxes are illegal (unreasonable) while a residency requirement might be perfectly fine.

So CA might pass a law saying out of state visitors with CCW's have to check in with the state police and register their firearm, destination, length of visit, etc. Someone would sue, and the court would get involved there.

So yes, I suppose no option is perfectly clean as regards states rights. The courts have long held that the Fed can play a role in ensuring certain rights are held to a minimum level in all states, and that's where this would help- That's what it would do for the 2nd amendment. In my opinion, anyway... It's definitely a bit of a challenging issue.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by Toorop

I agree. Then I could open carry my M4 with attached 203 to the local park to watch the little league games in safety and see my nephews play. And I could have my bayonet attached while I walk through the mall and shop for my girlfriend at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I'd never have to worry about what the antis think!

Any pics yet?

Which rifle, specifically, is your "M4"?

[Toorop]

Originally Posted by Warp

Now, you know you can't start talking about that without pictures.

Where are the pics?! A link to pics in another thread would be great

Once the Congress finally decides to recognize the 2nd Amendment as it was meant to be. I will have an M4 or maybe an MP5 to take with me everywhere as I go on about my daily life.

I figure it will happen at about the same time national reciprocity happens.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by Toorop

Once the Congress finally decides to recognize the 2nd Amendment as it was meant to be. I will have an M4 or maybe an MP5 to take with me everywhere as I go on about my daily life.

I figure it will happen at about the same time national reciprocity happens.

Do you have any experience carrying a rifle? If so, where?

[Toorop]

Originally Posted by Warp

Do you have any experience carrying a rifle? If so, where?

I do. I'd rather leave it at that. By chance do you?

[Warp]

Originally Posted by Toorop

I do. I'd rather leave it at that. By chance do you?

If you aren't willing to discuss it why do you keep throwing it out there?