[sat5555]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2017 introduction of S. 446, The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (TX).
“The current patchwork of state and local gun laws is confusing and can cause the most conscientious and law-abiding gun owner to run afoul of the law when they are traveling or temporarily living away from home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA. “Senator Cornyn’s legislation provides a much needed solution to a real problem for law-abiding gun owners.”

S. 446 would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state carry laws by allowing individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

 

[GLHunter]

This universal reciprocity bill is not something that I can comfortably endorse without perusing the fine print. We don't need a law enacted that can backfire in our faces down the road.

One surefire way some politician can cause me to give this bill a thumbs down is for them to pull a Nancy Pelosi by stating something stupid such as, "We'll just have to enact it before we can understand it."

 

[lklawson]

This universal reciprocity bill is not something that I can comfortably endorse without perusing the fine print. We don't need a law enacted that can backfire in our faces down the road.

One surefire way some politician can cause me to give this bill a thumbs down is for them to pull a Nancy Pelosi by stating something stupid such as, "We'll just have to enact it before we can understand it."

Unlikely to happen.

Endorsed by the NRA: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170227/nra-backs-concealed-carry-reciprocity-bill-in-us-senate

Text will be available here soon: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/446/text

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Electroshot]

One of the big issues that I have with federal laws is that of late they have a tendency to really push the limits of the 10th Amendment by placing all sorts of burdens on the individual states to meet compliance with the Federal Gov. This bill, from what I understand, is different as it appears to allow an individual's CCW license to be accepted in all states, very much like the current process with driver's licenses.

If the process were to be a national CCW license, I would strongly oppose such an idea as that would be strongly treading on the 10th Amendment.

By simply telling each of the states that they can't prohibit a person from the potential exercise of self defense with a firearm, regardless of the location of their home, it is in line with the 14th Amendment. One of the aspects of the 14th Amendment is that the states have to also respect the liberties in the Bill of Rights.

 

[lklawson]

One of the big issues that I have with federal laws is that of late they have a tendency to really push the limits of the 10th Amendment by placing all sorts of burdens on the individual states to meet compliance with the Federal Gov. This bill, from what I understand, is different as it appears to allow an individual's CCW license to be accepted in all states, very much like the current process with driver's licenses.

If the process were to be a national CCW license, I would strongly oppose such an idea as that would be strongly treading on the 10th Amendment.

By simply telling each of the states that they can't prohibit a person from the potential exercise of self defense with a firearm, regardless of the location of their home, it is in line with the 14th Amendment. One of the aspects of the 14th Amendment is that the states have to also respect the liberties in the Bill of Rights.

I haven't seen the text yet, but I've listened to others who, apparently, have. From what they say, it appears to only be a statement that "You must honor out of state CCW permits." This is inclusive of Virginia style Constitutional Carry in which a valid ID is the "permit." From what I've heard, the state's regulation on where and what still apply. If you are in a magazine restricted state, then you must abide by their magazine restriction regardless of what your state allows. Same applies to posted and restricted "gun free zones."

If this passes, California would be forced to accept every body else' CCW/Constitutional Carry. But I would expect California to immediately set about making every possible place a restricted "Gun Free Zone." I would also expect immediate efforts to change the Handgun Roster to limit what is legal to carry to super expensive and particularly limited capability guns. They might restrict it to only the .25ACP one-shot derringer which the (newly formed) California State Gun Manufacturing Company makes for a mere $2,400 (the good news is that they've upped their manufacturing capacity to 4 guns per year and have improved quality control to the point that most guns don't catastrophically malfunction usually).

I have thought that a National Reciprocity law would be the nail in the coffin for Cali & NY's anti-gun laws because their own citizens would not stand for tourists having more liberties than them. But the more I think of it, the more I believe that states like Maryland &tc. would (continue to) do their best to make it so expensive, inconvenient, and legally "hazardous."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[101581]

As much of a good thing as I think a bill like this would be, I do not think its has a snowballs chance in hell of passing. Nothing but a feel good measure for the RINO's who can then say "well, we tried" when it fails and then go groveling back to their constituents for more money/reelection votes.

Besides... Republicans still don't have 60 seats to get ensure that it passes, and you bet that not even all of the republicans will vote for it in the first place. You know the ones from the "blue" states will mostly vote against it because they cater to their constituency and disregard their parties.

 

[BlakeHanson]

As much of a good thing as I think a bill like this would be, I do not think its has a snowballs chance in hell of passing.

To further complicate things, it will probably become a moot point. Many states are working on removing the need for a CCW permit all together because it is pointless and not the revenue-generating machine they had hoped for.
Needless to say, the permits that those states don't issue anymore will have no reciprocity.
Here's why it is pointless:
1. If I got a 5-year permit and ran afoul of the law in year 1 and it was revoked, I'd still have the plastic card for 4 more years. Having one just gives me another opportunity to slip thru the hands of Leo's.
2. If you're stopped by a LEO and he doesn't like your looks, he's going to run you thru the same NCIC check in 28 seconds that it takes to get a permit, anyway. Whether you had a plastic card or not really means nothing.
3. If you're a good-guy with a clean record and got busted for not having a permit, if that's all they have, it's not going to fly in court anyway because they don't waste their time trying to jail good-guys; judges just throw it out.
4. If you're a bad-guy it won't make any difference if you had a damn plastic card or not, your butt is going in the back of the squad car. Tacking on another charge just makes you cost them more money to house.
5. And most importantly, they lose money playing the 'card-game'. Bureaucracy overload.

So, it winds up being a burden for the state, for LEO's, and for citizens, and accomplishes nothing.

Look for it one day to be just another symbol on your driver's license like 'organ donor'.

 

[lklawson]

You know the ones from the "blue" states will mostly vote against it because they cater to their constituency and disregard their parties.

That's how a Representative Republic is SUPPOSED to work.

Remember the Blue Dog Democrats? They got elected on the basis of being moderate, pro-gun, pro-middle America Democrats. When they got to Congress, they were told that they had to vote the Democrat Platform, vote exactly the way Pelosi and Durban told them to vote, which was exactly opposite of how their at-home local constituency wanted them to vote. They did it. Their voters at home didn't send them back for a second chance.

So, honestly, while I want National Reciprocity to pass, I'd personally say that it's unethical for a representative (Senator or Congressman) to vote the way someone else wants him to in opposition to the way his actual constituency wants.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

To further complicate things, it will probably become a moot point. Many states are working on removing the need for a CCW permit all together because it is pointless and not the revenue-generating machine they had hoped for.
Needless to say, the permits that those states don't issue anymore will have no reciprocity.

Actually... no. Interviews with people close to the legislation have repeatedly addressed this issue and have plainly said that states with Constitutional Carry would be covered under the National Reciprocity using a state issued ID. Last time I heard this was in an interview on Armed American Radio with Mark Walters a week or two back.

That aside, those states which are adding Constitutional Carry are not removing their existing CCW programs. They are leaving them in place and stating that they are doing so specifically in order to take advantage of existing CC reciprocity. Further, when Constitutional Carry is added in a state, the rolls of CCW continue to increase. Yes, even when permitless carry is legal people are getting their CCW anyway. I think that Virginia is the only state which has permitless carry but no CCW.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Electroshot]

The structure of our legislative and legal systems give multiple paths for relief of governmental wrongdoing by our governments. One path through the judicial system is to ask for judicial relief from government's (both federal and / or state) oppression of rights through its action (or inaction). The other path is through the legislative system where an appropriate law would provide that relief.

Our governmental system was originally designed to work at glacial speeds to inhibit mob mentality or group think from swinging our system of government back and forth. Such governmental gyrations would cause innumerably greater damages to our country than the damage by working slowly.

The paths for relief of the infractions by various state governments against the citizens who are present within those state boundaries for appropriate self-defense have been limited in the past due to the very costly and lengthy process through the legal system with an uncertain outcome. As many courts along with the U.S. Supreme Court have not always been clearly of the understanding that the US Constitution is not a "living document," but a fixed one. Many courts have tried to imbue "flexibility" into the understanding by trying to call it a "living document." The problem with that is that our society will be left in a constant state of either limbo or perpetual fear of the government, as the rules of societal behavior can suddenly change.

Passing a law that is in concert with the fundamental tenets of the US Constitution is one of those paths that can more quickly provide relief to the citizens present in California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc. from the tyranny of denying them what was promised in the Second Amendment. We have appropriate reason to be skeptical of any bill where we haven't had the chance to read the text, but there is no indication that it will be kept hidden in the manner that other infamous bills were in the past.

Let's be patient and let the rather slow process act the way it was intended. If the proper course is not followed, then we can get loud.

 

[haertig]

3. If you're a good-guy with a clean record and got busted for not having a permit, if that's all they have, it's not going to fly in court anyway because they don't waste their time trying to jail good-guys; judges just throw it out.

I have just two words to say to that. "New" "Jersey".

 

[haertig]

I wonder it the proposed law will allow for non-resident permits. e.g., I have a Utah permit even though I live in Colorado. There are a handful of states that issue non-resident permits. I think Florida does too?

Colorado allows most other states permits, EXCEPT non-resident permits. So I could not drop my (resident) Colorado permit and try to use my non-resident Utah permit in Colorado.

If Colorado honored non-resident permits, or the proposed law said they must, I would consider dropping my Colorado permit. Utah is cheaper, much faster, and renewals are done completely online. Utah does have a few more stringent questions on their forms than Colorado. e.g., they ask if you have had instances of "moral turpitude", whatever that is. I figured since I don't know what it is, I couldn't possibly have it, so I checked "no". The last time I heard that term was in the stupid "Porky's" movie, but the coach lady was just ranting about it, but never said what it was (it doesn't sound like a nice thing to have though).

p.s. - I just looked up moral turpitude: Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries that refers to "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community". Oh heck, I just might have that. Does hanging out with you guys count? Voting for Trump?

 

[mtn_chef]

Food for thought...
In my industry, the federal government forced all states to adopt the federal food code, guidelines from the FDA detailing every aspect of restaurant operation. Every state had to adopt them or lose fed money. Brought every one up to the same standards. Currently we're operating on the 2009 edition. Soon to be replaced by the 2013 guidelines. It also allowed governments at the local and state level to streamline and remove personal (health inspectors) from payrolls lessening the effect of the recession. (please feel free to note the significant uptick in the percentage of food borne illness in the US since this all went down)
To return to our original topic... who is ready to see what hoops the fed's going to make us jump thru to "standardize" all the CCW tests and back ground checks they dream up... can you say national handgun registry?
No surely not... it's not like California doesn't already tie a specific handgun to your permit. California got to weigh in heavily when it came to the organic food movement, there used to be only California certified organic; prior to the usda's new organic food label. And guess what, in reality, as long as it's " 95% " organic it qualifies as usda organic. Oh yeah and California helped give us all the lead restrictions, and carcinogens and all the emissions on cars... why haven't we just shoved that whole state off into the pacific?
so to sum it up I'm not really looking forward to how our whole democratic process f's up this idea. Yeah I'd like to carry all over the US but I don't want to see how this plays out in regards to the 2nd amendment. I really feel like the supreme court and congress need to just admit all these gun restricted zones/states are unconstitutional and to get the hecK over it

 

[haertig]

Food for thought...

As I understand it, none of that stuff you are worried about is in the proposed bill. It simply says something like "states must honor other states permits". It isn't trying to create a new federal permit, or change any existing rules regarding permits, other than telling states that they must accept other states permits.

Sounds like the current proposal is fine. Have to watch out for amendments that alter its basic intent though. Those could sink it for sure.

 

[theduke]

I have just two words to say to that. "New" "Jersey".

Being in Pa and surrounded by NY, NJ and Maryland, I hope this rectifies my issue of leaving a gun at home when leaving Pa.