yyyz Posted November 10, 2016 at 12:57 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 12:57 PM 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 More sharing options...
WARFACE Posted November 10, 2016 at 01:03 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 01:03 PM 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 More sharing options...
Rangerdeepv Posted November 10, 2016 at 01:47 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 01:47 PM 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................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted November 10, 2016 at 01:54 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 01:54 PM 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 More sharing options...
Kaeghl Posted November 10, 2016 at 02:56 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 02:56 PM 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 More sharing options...
Quiet Observer Posted November 10, 2016 at 04:58 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 04:58 PM 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 More sharing options...
Gamma Posted November 10, 2016 at 05:22 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 05:22 PM 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 More sharing options...
DD123 Posted November 10, 2016 at 06:52 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 06:52 PM 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 More sharing options...
output Posted November 10, 2016 at 08:47 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 08:47 PM 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 More sharing options...
Xwing Posted November 10, 2016 at 10:31 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 10:31 PM 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 More sharing options...
spec5 Posted November 10, 2016 at 10:38 PM Share Posted November 10, 2016 at 10:38 PM $ 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 More sharing options...
ragsbo Posted November 11, 2016 at 01:14 AM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 01:14 AM We already have nation wide reciprocity, it is called the 2nd Amendment to the United States of America Constitution. We we need is for the powers that wanna be stop infringing on it and let it work as written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomG Posted November 11, 2016 at 02:23 AM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 02:23 AM 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 More sharing options...
junglebob Posted November 11, 2016 at 02:43 AM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 02:43 AM 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 More sharing options...
Quiet Observer Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:08 AM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:08 AM 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 More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:21 AM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:21 AM 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 More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:54 AM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:54 AM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet Observer Posted November 11, 2016 at 05:04 AM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 05:04 AM 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 More sharing options...
DoverGunner Posted November 11, 2016 at 05:17 AM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 05:17 AM 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 More sharing options...
GTX63 Posted November 11, 2016 at 09:57 AM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 09:57 AM 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 More sharing options...
Rangerdeepv Posted November 11, 2016 at 12:16 PM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 12:16 PM 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 More sharing options...
Quiet Observer Posted November 11, 2016 at 02:27 PM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 02:27 PM 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 BranchSection 1 - Judicial powersThe 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 More sharing options...
vezpa Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:03 PM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:03 PM In order to do this efficiently they can offer a federal type license with set regulations that every state must adhere to. It would suck to take another class to exercise a right but it seems like the only way this can get done quickly. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:43 PM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:43 PM 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 More sharing options...
chislinger Posted November 11, 2016 at 05:28 PM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 05:28 PM I can see Democrats filibustering a reciprocity bill in the Senate. Maybe there's some trick to get around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted November 11, 2016 at 05:50 PM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 05:50 PM 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 More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted November 11, 2016 at 10:19 PM Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 10:19 PM We need the 'Protect the 2nd Amendment Act of 2017' containing: FULL Federal preemption of all Firearm Laws National constitutional Carry Liability for consequential damages should harm occur to anyone injured in a 'Guns Free Zone' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majujutinker Posted November 12, 2016 at 01:42 AM Share Posted November 12, 2016 at 01:42 AM A license with pic that I can buy a gun and ammunition so that would be FOID carry. Maybe I read HR 923 worng not sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted November 12, 2016 at 03:23 AM Share Posted November 12, 2016 at 03:23 AM 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 More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 12, 2016 at 03:54 AM Share Posted November 12, 2016 at 03:54 AM 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.