National Reciprocity a Reality Under President Trump

[gLockedandLoaded]

I can see Democrats filibustering a reciprocity bill in the Senate. Maybe there's some trick to get around that.

 

If they even have that option:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/republicans-house-senate.html

[spec5]

 

I can see Democrats filibustering a reciprocity bill in the Senate. Maybe there's some trick to get around that.

 

If they even have that option:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/republicans-house-senate.html

Harry Reid started the nuclear option with just a simple majority let's keep it going. They wanted it let them have it.

[Flingarrows]

 

 

I can see Democrats filibustering a reciprocity bill in the Senate. Maybe there's some trick to get around that.

If they even have that option:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/republicans-house-senate.html

Harry Reid started the nuclear option with just a simple majority let's keep it going. They wanted it let them have it.

 

 

x2. whats good for one is good for all

[vito]

I have no doubt that the Dems in the Senate will be fighting tooth and nail against EVERY proposal put forward by Trump. Mitch McConnell will get to decide whether or not he will invoke the "nuclear option" and outlaw the filibuster or acquiese in the name of "Senatorial tradition" and let the Dems keep anything from happening without a 60 vote majority. Under our system of Constitutional law, Federal law trumps State law, so I think our best chance for true national reciprocity lies with an actual Federal law being passed to mandate the acceptance of any state's concealed carry license in every other state, rather than attempting the real solution of eliminating the need for such a license nationwide, a change that might be unachievable. I remember back in the 1960's when Alaska did not require either a written or road test to get a driver's license, only an age requirement and the payment of a fee. Yet all states, including Texas where I lived at that time, recognized those licenses anyway. The potential for harm is at least as great with moving a two ton vehicle at speed as is the carrying of a puny handgun. But while Republicans have control of the Congress, I wonder about Republicans from States like NY and NJ where the current draconian laws restricting firearms are popular, if they will go along with the "radical" idea of being forced to accept all of us "depolorables" visiting their states and being armed to the teeth. I'm not very optimistic that we will see much actually happen in this area.

[Mr. Fife]

Just the fact the you wouldn't be hauled off to jail in NY or NJ for simply possessing a gun would be progress. Any bill should ask for way more than we can possibly expect to get, that way we can have so.ething to negotiate or compromise with. I'm tired of always having to compromise where we get nothing.

[Rail]

I think a favorable decision by SCOTUS on Peruta should come first. 50 shall-issue states, then do national reciprocity from there.

[RoadyRunner]

 

And what about the Conservative members that would object on the basis of 10th amendment infringement (state's rights)?

Why should the States have a 10th amendment right to limit what is a Constitutional Right?I'd argue that the Federal Government needs a Law specifically to preempt State and local Law on the matter.

[DD123]

If the left continues with their crybaby, violent rhetoric and actions, we'll pick up several more seats in the senate, and have real control and not just a simple majority

 

Could you imagine if they started acting like the violent leftists in the 60's? OMG that would be incredible. They'd be labeled domestic terrorists LOL

[kevinmcc]

Personally Guys I think a lot of you are still Giddy perhaps too giddy from Trumps election .

I think you are going to be Sadly disappointed . There will be Lawsuits from Illinois , DC . NJ , NY , DC CA and lord knows how many others fighting this tooth and Nail , and that alone will take years

 

Put Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court and let them sue...

[WhiskeyRebel]

This is a real touchy subject for me.

In truth, I'd prefer a court order to recognize all other licenses instead of another federal law.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's precedent for that. Might want to look at what the scotus said about gay marriage licenses

[kevinmcc]

 

And what about the Conservative members that would object on the basis of 10th amendment infringement (state's rights)?

Why should the States have a 10th amendment right to limit what is a Constitutional Right? I'd argue that the Federal Government needs a Law specifically to preempt State and local Law on the matter.

 

The 10th Amendment say states have power to enact laws that are not delegate for Congress in the Constitution or prohibited to them by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment prohibits gun laws, both by states and Congress, and yet we have them...

[DD123]

 

 

And what about the Conservative members that would object on the basis of 10th amendment infringement (state's rights)?

Why should the States have a 10th amendment right to limit what is a Constitutional Right? I'd argue that the Federal Government needs a Law specifically to preempt State and local Law on the matter.

 

The 10th Amendment say states have power to enact laws that are not delegate for Congress in the Constitution or prohibited to them by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment prohibits gun laws, both by states and Congress, and yet we have them...

 

You might want to reread Scalia's comments in the Heller decision again. He left the door open for regulations provided that they fall in line with the decision in general and are reasonable. Had he said no regulations period, that's a completely different story and those AR bans, mag capacity bans, and the rest of it would no longer exist.

[RoadyRunner]

 

And what about the Conservative members that would object on the basis of 10th amendment infringement (state's rights)?Why should the States have a 10th amendment right to limit what is a Constitutional Right? I'd argue that the Federal Government needs a Law specifically to preempt State and local Law on the matter. The 10th Amendment say states have power to enact laws that are not delegate for Congress in the Constitution or prohibited to them by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment prohibits gun laws, both by states and Congress, and yet we have them...

Since they have such laws (and appear ignorant to their infringement), we need a Federal Law that preempts States and local Law with regard to firearms, as well as eliminating the NFA. So - eliminate all State and local Law as well as eliminate Federal restrictions that also infringe.

[kevinmcc]

 

The 10th Amendment say states have power to enact laws that are not delegate for Congress in the Constitution or prohibited to them by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment prohibits gun laws, both by states and Congress, and yet we have them...

You might want to reread Scalia's comments in the Heller decision again. He left the door open for regulations provided that they fall in line with the decision in general and are reasonable. Had he said no regulations period, that's a completely different story and those AR bans, mag capacity bans, and the rest of it would no longer exist.

 

You may want to read Bliss v. Commonwealth and State v. Buzzard.

[tkroenlein]

This is a real touchy subject for me.

In truth, I'd prefer a court order to recognize all other licenses instead of another federal law.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There's precedent for that. Might want to look at what the scotus said about gay marriage licenses

I'm aware of what SCOTUS says about marriage. It's not the same, at all.

 

There is an enumerated right to keep and bear. The states also have the *obligation* to regulate firearms, since there would be no effective mechanism to prohibit ownership by felons at the federal level.

 

So, the constitution says this-the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, but some citizens can lose those rights for certain crimes or conditions given they are afforded due process. It also says that any powers not retained by the fed are granted to the states. The states then, do have the power to regulate firearms to the extent

that those criminals may not possess firearms. Not licensing, not limiting mag capacities, nothing else, just prohibiting access to those who are unfit.

 

But we have aaaaaallllllll these unconstitutional laws anyway. Licenses, ID's, mag limits, transportation laws, blah blah blah. So our solution to roll back state overreach is to pass a law that grants the Federal Government the ability to regulate how we carry our guns. That is a power the fed doesn't currently hold.

[DonP]

It would drag more than a couple states into the court arena with Illinois included as we don't have a reciprocity agreement with anyone and the states that have 'may' issue will be in an uproar. Sounds like lots of court cases coming on the horizon................

 

Maybe after he's appointed 2 or 3 new "Scalia's or "Thomas's" to SCOTUS first?

[spec5]

Personally Guys I think a lot of you are still Giddy perhaps too giddy from Trumps election .

I think you are going to be Sadly disappointed . There will be Lawsuits from Illinois , DC . NJ , NY , DC CA and lord knows how many others fighting this tooth and Nail , and that alone will take years

 

Color me Giddy then. HIllary is sadly disappointed and that is enough to for me. Others told us Trump didn't have a chance. I get so tired of the pessimists. We won and we should keep on winning. This is our best chance and we shouldn't squander it. In another thread on this forum there is also a post about his statements on Reciprocity Post election.

[RoadyRunner]

This is a real touchy subject for me.

In truth, I'd prefer a court order to recognize all other licenses instead of another federal law.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's precedent for that. Might want to look at what the scotus said about gay marriage licenses

 

I'm aware of what SCOTUS says about marriage. It's not the same, at all.

There is an enumerated right to keep and bear. The states also have the *obligation* to regulate firearms, since there would be no effective mechanism to prohibit ownership by felons at the federal level.

So, the constitution says this-the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, but some citizens can lose those rights for certain crimes or conditions given they are afforded due process. It also says that any powers not retained by the fed are granted to the states. The states then, do have the power to regulate firearms to the extent

that those criminals may not possess firearms. Not licensing, not limiting mag capacities, nothing else, just prohibiting access to those who are unfit.

But we have aaaaaallllllll these unconstitutional laws anyway. Licenses, ID's, mag limits, transportation laws, blah blah blah. So our solution to roll back state overreach is to pass a law that grants the Federal Government the ability to regulate how we carry our guns. That is a power the fed doesn't currently hold.

Maybe the courts will actually read the 2A for what it means once Trump has put a solidly 2A friendly judge in Scala's seat.

 

However, I do believe that if the Federal Govt sees States as infringing a Constitutional right, why do they (the Federal Govt) NOT have not only the right, but the obligation to enact a Federal Law prohibiting the States from infringing, by enumerating what States are NOT allowed to do, citing the 2A as the authority?

 

The Fed can enact laws where they have the enumerated rights to do so, yes. But they also have the authority to enjoin the States from unconstitutional Law as well... since the Bill of Rights is an even higher authority.

 

[skinnyb82]

They could do away with the 10th Amendment issue by stripping the power from the states to arbitrarily deny permits because of (insert BS reason here). Federal courts do have the authority to enjoin states from enacting unconstitutional legislation. Getting Full Faith and Credit applied to carry permits will make them uniform (hopefully), can't exactly "may issue" a drivers license. Same idea with CCLs.

 

Right now it looks like SCOTUS will see at least one 2A case, likely two. Soon. Either Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff or Binderup. Haven't seen a cert petition for either but there's one on the way. Or maybe not since Obama probably doesn't want SCOTUS touching Tyler or Binderup. GCA prohibitions on involuntary commitments and/or restoration of gun rights for convicted felons. Any time a federal law is declared unconstitutional and the government wishes to pursue it at the national level, the cert petition will go to the front of the line. I was really worried about these two cases if Hillary got in but now...meh, not so much. This liberal diversity initiative crap with SCOTUS is over. It would behove Trump to avoid Sykes and Pryor like the plague as Sykes once sentenced two anti'abortion protesters who WELDED a man's legs together to 60 days in prison with work release privileges. During sentencing, she praised their motives for being pure and what have you. That's why Durbin opposed her nomination to CA7. And Circuit Judge Pryor called Miranda v. Arizona "judicial activism" and Roe v. Wade the "worst abomination in constitutional law...." I agree but those actions and statements will be used as ammo during confirmation. I LOVE to see Judge Hardiman out of CA3 get the nod for SCOTUS. He believes all gun control is unconstitutional per se (apply strict scrutiny), with the burden on the government to make a showing that the law is narrowly tailored, least restrictive means and all of that. He was in the 4 judge concurrence to apply strict scrutiny in Binderup, delivered a scathing in Drake, and dissented from denial of rehearing en banc in Drake. Solid 2A circuit judge who would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[tkroenlein]

 

This is a real touchy subject for me.

In truth, I'd prefer a court order to recognize all other licenses instead of another federal law.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's precedent for that. Might want to look at what the scotus said about gay marriage licenses

 

I'm aware of what SCOTUS says about marriage. It's not the same, at all.

There is an enumerated right to keep and bear. The states also have the *obligation* to regulate firearms, since there would be no effective mechanism to prohibit ownership by felons at the federal level.

So, the constitution says this-the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, but some citizens can lose those rights for certain crimes or conditions given they are afforded due process. It also says that any powers not retained by the fed are granted to the states. The states then, do have the power to regulate firearms to the extent

that those criminals may not possess firearms. Not licensing, not limiting mag capacities, nothing else, just prohibiting access to those who are unfit.

But we have aaaaaallllllll these unconstitutional laws anyway. Licenses, ID's, mag limits, transportation laws, blah blah blah. So our solution to roll back state overreach is to pass a law that grants the Federal Government the ability to regulate how we carry our guns. That is a power the fed doesn't currently hold.

Maybe the courts will actually read the 2A for what it means once Trump has put a solidly 2A friendly judge in Scala's seat.

 

However, I do believe that if the Federal Govt sees States as infringing a Constitutional right, why do they (the Federal Govt) NOT have not only the right, but the obligation to enact a Federal Law prohibiting the States from infringing, by enumerating what States are NOT allowed to do, citing the 2A as the authority?

 

The Fed can enact laws where they have the enumerated rights to do so, yes. But they also have the authority to enjoin the States from unconstitutional Law as well... since the Bill of Rights is an even higher authority.

My point is the fed already has all the laws it needs to make this happen, and why I prefer a SCOTUS ruling against either specific states for failing to recognize out of state licenses or a ruling against all state licensing schemes. (<not likely)

 

A federal law requiring recognition of all licenses appears to me to only further the notion that licenses are constitutional at all.

[soundguy]

Nationwide Constitutional Carry.

 

GCA68 modified so if you pass NICS, you can pick up a new gun wherever you are with no waiting period other than waiting for the NICS approval.

[majujutinker]

Nationwide Constitutional Carry.

 

GCA68 modified so if you pass NICS, you can pick up a new gun wherever you are with no waiting period other than waiting for the NICS approval.

 

This would be nice but it will never happen

[lockman]

Nationwide Constitutional Carry.

 

GCA68 modified so if you pass NICS, you can pick up a new gun wherever you are with no waiting period other than waiting for the NICS approval.

This would be nice but it will never happen

 

About as unlikely down the road as concealed carry in Illinois.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kevinmcc]

There is an enumerated right to keep and bear. The states also have the *obligation* to regulate firearms, since there would be no effective mechanism to prohibit ownership by felons at the federal level.

 

So, the constitution says this-the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, but some citizens can lose those rights for certain crimes or conditions given they are afforded due process. It also says that any powers not retained by the fed are granted to the states. The states then, do have the power to regulate firearms to the extent

that those criminals may not possess firearms.

What??? You can't be serious... Explain to what mechanism supersedes the Constitution after your liberty has been restored?

[tkroenlein]

There is an enumerated right to keep and bear. The states also have the *obligation* to regulate firearms, since there would be no effective mechanism to prohibit ownership by felons at the federal level.So, the constitution says this-the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, but some citizens can lose those rights for certain crimes or conditions given they are afforded due process. It also says that any powers not retained by the fed are granted to the states. The states then, do have the power to regulate firearms to the extentthat those criminals may not possess firearms.What??? You can't be serious... Explain to what mechanism supersedes the Constitution after your liberty has been restored?

Maybe you've read something into my post that isn't there. I'm not saying anything supersedes the Constitution.

 

I'm saying that most laws that legitimately make people felons are state laws. Ergo, the state must have the ability to prohibit ownership of firearms.

[JTHunter]

 

It would drag more than a couple states into the court arena with Illinois included as we don't have a reciprocity agreement with anyone and the states that have 'may' issue will be in an uproar. Sounds like lots of court cases coming on the horizon................

 

Maybe after he's appointed 2 or 3 new "Scalia's or "Thomas's" to SCOTUS first?

 

 

Don, I think the problem is that, after replacing Scalia, the oldest judges are mostly the conservatives, with the exception of Ginsberg. It would be a "1 for 1" swap.

[majujutinker]

https://www.change.org/p/bruce-rauner-national-constitutional-carry/share_for_starters?just_created=true

[Mr. Fife]

I thought Rauner was on our side already.

[mrmagloo]

 

 

It would drag more than a couple states into the court arena with Illinois included as we don't have a reciprocity agreement with anyone and the states that have 'may' issue will be in an uproar. Sounds like lots of court cases coming on the horizon................

 

Maybe after he's appointed 2 or 3 new "Scalia's or "Thomas's" to SCOTUS first?

 

 

Don, I think the problem is that, after replacing Scalia, the oldest judges are mostly the conservatives, with the exception of Ginsberg. It would be a "1 for 1" swap.

 

 

Wrong, 2 out of the oldest 3 are Liberal Judges. If during his term, he can replace those 2 plus Scalia's seat with strong Conservative Judges, we will be at 7 to 2. And, if Kennedy is ready to step down in the next 4 years, knowing there's a Conservative President, that seat as well. Our Stars have aligned.

 

(Antonin Scalia) Age: 79 yr 11 mo Conservative < Open >

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Age: 83 yr 7 mo Liberal Served: 23 yr 2 mo

Anthony Kennedy Age: 80 yr 3 mo Conservative Served: 28 yr 8 mo

Stephen Breyer Age: 78 yr 2 mo Liberal Served: 22 yr 3 mo

Clarence Thomas Age: 68 yr 4 mo Conservative Served: 25 yr 0 mo

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Age: 66 yr 7 mo Conservative Served: 10 yr 9 mo

Sonia Sotomayor Age: 62 yr 4 mo Liberal Served: 7 yr 3 mo

John G. Roberts Age: 61 yr 9 mo Conservative Served: 11 yr 1 mo

Elena Kagan Age: 56 yr 6 mo Liberal Served: 6 yr 3 mo

[storydw]

However it gets done, I use the Chicago state funded public transportation (Metra) all the time, and frankly, that has been scary enough. For those that put up the approved No Gun Sign, well that is their right as well. So I hope that as a licensed and responsible ILCCW holder, that they get real and understand that we are not the bad guys, and allow us to carry in more places. I understand all the federal buildings, power plants and school restrictions, but like I said, they need to understand we are the good guys.

 

For National Carry, I feel as long as the list of restricted areas is standardized across the nation, it will make life easier when we travel from state to state. I go nuts right now when I travel trying to keep it all straight from one state line to another. Can I stop at the rest area and use the facilities without becoming a victim or a felon? What a head ache that is.

 

I have faith in the NRA, 2A and others to act on our behalf in these matters and get the job done right the first time, but time will tell.