Jump to content

National Reciprocity a Reality Under President Trump


yyyz

Recommended Posts

Good article on Breitbart this morning ...

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/09/national-reciprocity-reality-president-trump/

 

Summary... "With president-elect Donald Trump headed toward a January 20, 2017 inauguration, one thing is certain–national reciprocity for concealed carry will have a friend in the White House."

 

Wouldn't national reciprocity be great!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article on Breitbart this morning ...

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/09/national-reciprocity-reality-president-trump/

 

Summary... "With president-elect Donald Trump headed toward a January 20, 2017 inauguration, one thing is certain–national reciprocity for concealed carry will have a friend in the White House."

 

Wouldn't national reciprocity be great!

 

It would be great but Constitutional carry would be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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................

 

It would be interesting to see how they rule since the states recognize marriages, driver license, etc. with no additional requirements. This is a Constitutional Right, so how does any state have the right to restrict it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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................

 

It would be interesting to see how they rule since the states recognize marriages, driver license, etc. with no additional requirements. This is a Constitutional Right, so how does any state have the right to restrict it?

 

 

"so how does any state have the right to restrict it?" indeed.

 

I would LOVE to hear the Attorney Generals of California, New York and especially New Jersey try to explain their policies in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much would national CCW reciprocity accomplish?

 

Our driver license are recognized in every state, but we still have to follow the rules in the state in which we are driving. The same would hold true in regard to the carry laws in the various states. New Yorkers who are licensed to carry in their state are still severely restricted on where they can carry.

 

I am not against national reciprocity, but do not think that it is the panacea that some see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Yorkers who are licensed to carry in their state are still severely restricted on where they can carry.

No they're not, NY has almost no restrictions on carry locations. Other than being extremely restrictive on giving out the permits.

 

Proposed nationwide recognition laws have generally specified that visitors licenses be recognized as full carry permits, "unlimited" etc. to solve the problems of a state like NY's byzantine classification system.

 

This road has already been paved via LEOSA, they just have to open the on-ramp for people other than the ennobled retired LEOs.

 

The best way to get states like NY to fix their permit systems is via national recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very interested in seeing how this gets passed. There are some hurdles that I've been reading about with regard to 10th amendment police powers issues.

 

I'm sure all of the states that don't want this are going to fight it tooth and nail. It should be interesting in any event.

 

I get the LEOSA pathway to getting this through, but how would that work exactly? Put yourself into the shoes of a leftist for a moment. The reason they are okay with current and retired police carrying across state lines is that they were police, therefore somehow more trustworthy than us mere peasants.

 

I also somewhat get the whole "DL recognized in every state" path, but as mentioned by quite a few people, while driving may be a privilege and not a right, the right to travel is a constitutional right, and the car is just the vehicle that gets you from point a to point b.

 

I'll put my trust in the lawyers of the NRA who believe that there's a way to get this through because I don't think the NRA would waste much needed money on something that has no chance....kind of like legalizing machine-guns. That ain't gonna ever happen lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to start emailing and calling my elected officials once Trump is in office. We need to find someone to sponsor a bill, and someone to start writing content. Someone with the correct knowledge of course. These next two years just might be our best chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These next two years just might be our best chance.

 

These next two years will be our only chance in the foreseeable future. I hope that both President-elect Trump and Congress use the time to maximum effectiveness (both on gun rights and other things.) The last time they had this chance in the 1920s...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$ Work with your US Senators to bring it up to Trump. $

 

MY US Representative Darin LaHood is my champion to get it done.

 

Actually if we had someone other the Durbin and Duckworthless that WOULD have been one way to go.

 

PLUS

 

I do know that people like Todd and the NRA, Illinois Carry and 2nd Amendment Foundation and others 2nd amendment groups will be our mouthpiece to get it done.

 

We can't miss this Golden Opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

These next two years just might be our best chance.

 

These next two years will be our only chance in the foreseeable future. I hope that both President-elect Trump and Congress use the time to maximum effectiveness (both on gun rights and other things.) The last time they had this chance in the 1920s...

I disagree. The next two years are the easiest and quickest way, but with Supreme Court appointments by President Trump, it can happen through the court too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much would national CCW reciprocity accomplish?

 

Our driver license are recognized in every state, but we still have to follow the rules in the state in which we are driving. The same would hold true in regard to the carry laws in the various states. New Yorkers who are licensed to carry in their state are still severely restricted on where they can carry.

 

I am not against national reciprocity, but do not think that it is the panacea that some see.

 

Would only resident LTC be recognized in all other states? If so residents from states like New Jersey, Hawaii, and California wouldn't be better off, if their states continued to be may issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Would only resident LTC be recognized in all other states? If so residents from states like New Jersey, Hawaii, and California wouldn't be better off, if their states continued to be may issue.

 

 

I do not know if anything has been officially presented yet. If and when it is, it will certainly be challenged and probably modified. The drivers license analogy is often used, but there are different types of DLs - passenger, commercial (with tonnage ratings), limo, depending on the state. Most states, like Illinois, have a single license to carry for civilians. A few states have distinctions e.g. dwelling only, business premises only, on the job only, or "proper cause" which is similar to CCW in most states. How these variations would be handled, I do not know. Then there are the states, e.g. Vermont, that do not require licensure to carry. Since they have not passed any background checks, many states do not recognize Vermonters' right to carry in other states. How a national law would deal with this, I do not know. Some states, like Michigan, recognize licenses from all states, but only if you are a resident of the state for which you are CCW. If you are an Illinois resident, your Utah or Florida carry license is useless in Michigan. How a national would address this, I do not know.

 

We can do a lot of could be, maybe, should be, but until something concrete is submitted to Congress it is a dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would only resident LTC be recognized in all other states? If so residents from states like New Jersey, Hawaii, and California wouldn't be better off, if their states continued to be may issue.

It depends upon the bill. Four bills currently exist in Congress (3 House, 1 Senate). H.R. 986 has the most sponsors (216) and allows a person to carry in any other state with a permit or license from any state. So a NJ resident with a Florida license could carry anywhere else (except in NJ).

 

With this Congress wrapping up soon, and a new President inbound, there won't be any movement on this issue until at least late Jan or Feb. Either the House or Senate will need to introduce a fresh set of bills since the four current bills will expire at the end at the end of the 114th Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Would only resident LTC be recognized in all other states? If so residents from states like New Jersey, Hawaii, and California wouldn't be better off, if their states continued to be may issue.

It depends upon the bill. Four bills currently exist in Congress (3 House, 1 Senate). H.R. 986 has the most sponsors (216) and allows a person to carry in any other state with a permit or license from any state. So a NJ resident with a Florida license could carry anywhere else (except in NJ).

 

With this Congress wrapping up soon, and a new President inbound, there won't be any movement on this issue until at least late Jan or Feb. Either the House or Senate will need to introduce a fresh set of bills since the four current bills will expire at the end at the end of the 114th Congress.

 

 

Thanks for the input kwc. For now it looks like "wait 'til next year". I hope it is not another 108.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawsuits have been how the country has been legislated for a long time now. Liberals have used the courts to get what a vote could not and brain washed another generation into believing a settled law is a popular and good law.

 

That said, weeding out the liberal judges starting in January and filling every courtroom with like minded appointees should be the first approach. Then the cases can be presented.

 

Maybe Terry McAullif can lend Trump his autopen to fill these spots tootsweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I an cornered with my reps as they are all ding-a-lings as far as the gun rights go. One ran up-opposed and gets a F- for gun rights. The other 2........have to keep the blood pressure low today. It would be great so far as the patchwork of laws from state to state now is ridiculous. Remember when our State Attorney wanted to publicly publish all FOID card holders? That was not long ago and we have come such a long way. But like all things worth having they must be taken care of not forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawsuits have been how the country has been legislated for a long time now. Liberals have used the courts to get what a vote could not and brain washed another generation into believing a settled law is a popular and good law.

 

That said, weeding out the liberal judges starting in January and filling every courtroom with like minded appointees should be the first approach. Then the cases can be presented.

 

Maybe Terry McAullif can lend Trump his autopen to fill these spots tootsweet.

 

It would be difficult to "weed out" federal judges. Like the Supreme Court justices, they have lifetime tenure.

 

U.S. Constitution Article III. - The Judicial Branch

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think someone above touched on it, but one major issue that I see is the widely varying GFZ's in every state. I do alot of traveling cross country on my Harley and it's kind of a PITA to study every state I pass through and make a stop. So I typically revert to the lowest common denominator and disarm pretty much anywhere I would have to in IL. However, I know many states are much less strict, but there is just no consistency. It would sure be nice is part of the HR822 which I believe already passed the House, was amended to also restrict most GFZ's too. While I would like to see all of them banned, I'm sure we will have to deal with a few to get this done, like Court Rooms, Airports, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It would be interesting to see how they rule since the states recognize marriages, driver license, etc. with no additional requirements. This is a Constitutional Right, so how does any state have the right to restrict it?


A combination of the application of "full faith and credit" and Obergfell.


Actually if we had someone other the Durbin and Duckworthless that WOULD have been one way to go.



Milquetoast Mark wouldn't have touched the issue had he won reelection. It might have offended the $uburbanites who attended his $10k/plate donor dinners.


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



Many of their plays were hinted at in the amici to Heller, McDonald and Moore. I would think that the cases would be consolidated, or that it would only take two, one to set precedent and the next to incorporate it. As long as the reciprocity would allow the states to still set conditions for CCW holders within that state - conditions that must be followed by resident or non-resident permit holders - the idea the states were losing the ability to control the issue would be minimized, especially since the states already offer them in some capacity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of their plays were hinted at in the amici to Heller, McDonald and Moore. I would think that the cases would be consolidated, or that it would only take two, one to set precedent and the next to incorporate it. As long as the reciprocity would allow the states to still set conditions for CCW holders within that state - conditions that must be followed by resident or non-resident permit holders - the idea the states were losing the ability to control the issue would be minimized, especially since the states already offer them in some capacity.

States would still have the ability to regulate carry. In a non-discriminatory fashion. The same rules would apply to all Americans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Setting aside the possibility of a filibuster, do we even have enough votes for a national reciprocity bill in the Senate? 52:48 is a very narrow margin assuming this would fall strictly down party lines. Will any Dems support it? Will some RINOs vote against it? And what about the Conservative members that would object on the basis of 10th amendment infringement (state's rights)?

 

I prefer a court ruling, too, as the driving force behind rescinding laws that prohibit nonresident right to bear arms in other states. But this will take many years to resolve.

 

If we are to use the legislative route, as I've mentioned before, at a minimum stop using the commerce clause as justification for this. That only encourages the federal government to become more powerful. The 2A should be reason enough. In any case, I wouldn't favor a federal licensing scheme. (Fortunately none of the current bills attempt this.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...