quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

…There's no mechanism to make any state accept the CCW laws or permits of every other state. It just isn't an area reserved to the Feds under the constitution…

What about LEOSA? It was passed by Congress and signed by Bush II, later amended by Obama. I’m thrilled with this, as it allows me (retired reserve LEO) to carry in the adjacent People’s Republik of IL.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

…There's no mechanism to make any state accept the CCW laws or permits of every other state. It just isn't an area reserved to the Feds under the constitution…

What about LEOSA? It was passed by Congress and signed by Bush II, later amended by Obama. I’m thrilled with this, as it allows me (retired reserve LEO) to carry in the adjacent People’s Republik of IL.

I'm trying to do a cut and paste of the DOJ summary of LEOSA but it's not working for their pdf.

The summary is that CA allows peace officers to ccw and it follows LEOSA but language in LEOSA says it does not supercede any state ccw restrictions. You can't fly in with your hi cap mags and ccw in a school, even though you can where you're from.

That federal bill does not give any greater rights than what CA allows because policing policies are local and fed law cannot mandate what CA does. In short, CA allows for LEOSA carry and the feds have no say.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I'm trying to do a cut and paste of the DOJ summary of LEOSA but it's not working for their pdf.

The summary is that CA allows peace officers to ccw and it follows LEOSA but language in LEOSA says it does not supersede any state ccw restrictions. You can't fly in with your hi cap mags and ccw in a school, even though you can where you're from.

That federal bill does not give any greater rights than what CA allows because policing policies are local and fed law cannot mandate what CA does. In short, CA allows for LEOSA carry and the feds have no say.

Then following that, anyone with a state issued carry permit should be allowed to carry in any state, as long as they meet that states firearms laws regarding the when and where as well as mag capacity limits.

It should be no different than driving in CA with a TX license. By TX rules you have a DL says you are lawfully licensed, how TX issues or determines how you obtain a license isn't in play, having one and, car insurance says you meet CA's financial requirements, and you obey the traffic laws in CA and CA says you can drive there.

Shouldn't be any different for a concealed permit holder, as long as you have a state issued Permit, and observe the state laws in which you are in, you should be able to pass through or visit without fear of being jailed for simply being a non resident in possession of a firearm.

If those states allow law enforcement under LEOSA, then it should be the same for those who are not former law enforcement, but legally permitted, it's (LEOSA) discriminatory.

You have a lot going on in your reply but what you're describing is reciprocity.

LEOSA not override any state's CCW laws. It is subservient to state and local laws because the feds, even with LEOSA, have no authority to mandate what you've said. It's not an authority or power found in the constitution.

I don't know how else to explain it orher than saying LEOSA sits in the very back seat of the bus to any states CCW laws.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
You have a lot going on in your reply but what you're describing is reciprocity.

Uhhh, that's exactly what we're all talking about here...Nothing more, nothing less! It's even right there in the thread title! It's just those with a 'JD' that keep adding arguments against interpretations not in evidence here, and contortionist logic that they believe somehow nullifies the simple interpretation of what 50-State Reciprocity for CCW permit holders should mean. It's NOT complicated.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
You have a lot going on in your reply but what you're describing is reciprocity.

Uhhh, that's exactly what we're all talking about here...Nothing more, nothing less! It's even right there in the thread title! It's just those with a 'JD' that keep adding arguments against interpretations not in evidence here, and contortionist logic that they believe somehow nullifies the simple interpretation of what 50-State Reciprocity for CCW permit holders should mean. It's NOT complicated.

It's not complicated because you want it to be with a magic waiving of the wand. You are conveniently ignoring the consitutional path, that's necessary. All federal laws that are intended to redefine or impact state laws have to be consitutionally permissible.

There is no law right under the constitution, either express or implied, that allows the feds to address local policing laws, and there's authority for them to force CA to have involuntary reciprocity agreements with all the other states.

The feds cannot magically make all licenses and permits valid in all the other states aka a 50 state permit.

I'd love it if it were the law but my desire for the law doesn't override the needed constiutional scrutiny it must face. If it passes, depending on the language, CA will win rather handily in court.

quote:

There is no law right under the constitution, either express or implied, that allows the feds to address local policing laws, and there's authority for them to force CA to have involuntary reciprocity agreements with all the other states.

Did you leave a no out? As written, the first and second clauses are contradictory.

I did leave out the no by mistake
My error.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
I will read the decision when I have time.

Does this seem like a reasonable summation:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...ealed-carry-licenses

Far and away, the historical restrictions were meant for blacks/immigrants/poor whites.

Bruen seems to pretty clearly require shall issue/constitutional carry, but I don’t think it addressed the second prong of the intent to arm the populace against the government.

Yes, and the historical analysis is what is different from other standards used to evaluate other regulations, which are generally what can be called "means/ends" analysis. In other words, does the end justify the means, given the nature of the right to be regulated? There are several formulations depending on the importance of the right being regulated, ranging from looking only for a "rational basis" to strict scrutiny. This is a much bigger subject than is really suitable for a forum post, but there is tons of material out there on this.

I worked with 2 reserve police officers. They told me. If you’re not waving it around like an idiot, no one will know you have it.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
You have a lot going on in your reply but what you're describing is reciprocity.

Uhhh, that's exactly what we're all talking about here...Nothing more, nothing less! It's even right there in the thread title! It's just those with a 'JD' that keep adding arguments against interpretations not in evidence here, and contortionist logic that they believe somehow nullifies the simple interpretation of what 50-State Reciprocity for CCW permit holders should mean. It's NOT complicated.

You are ignoring the fundamental relationship between the states and the feds. Remember, the states are the sovereign entities on most questions, not the feds. The feds don't have this power. Several posts in this thread have explained why this is, but you are not hearing it. It is, in fact, more complicated than you want to believe.

In 95 cases out of 100, you would not want the feds stepping in to override the states, but since this override suits you, you are for it.

The feds may not have the authority to force reciprocity, but the states arguably do not have the authority to require a license to keep or bear arms, nor the right to restrict where we may do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
The feds may not have the authority to force reciprocity, but the states arguably do not have the authority to require a license to keep or bear arms, nor the right to restrict where we may do so.

But the states do have that right. Policing is local.

The 2nd A gives you the right but you don't have the right to carry concealed unless the state has provisions in the law that allow it. That's part of the refinement coming out of the recent SCOTUS decisions but under no decision does the citizen have an unlimited right to carry concealed wherever desired.

No state says you don't have the right to keep and bear arms but the question is, "Are the restrictions such that it's effectively a bar to exercising your 2nd A rights." Even Justice Thomas said a state can regulate in sensitive areas and the blue states quickly passed laws that said practically everywhere was a sensitive area to effectively limit you to your home, your care or private property where you have permission from the property owner.

NOBODY is arguing that there would be ZERO restrictions, or that there be an 'unlimited rigtht to carry concealed wherever desired', just that there be reciprocity! WTF about that don't you get?

I clearly get it. Plenty get it.

What's getting lost in the glee club of national reciprocity is there is no federal authority, explicit or inferred, that allows - and commands -all states to recognize and accept the CCW permits from any of the other states. Even LEOSA defers to state laws, and EROSA wouldn't exist if it said state laws were subservient to federal law.


If you can overcome the constitutional challenges and limitations, you'll have a wining argument but there's no constitutional path to get there.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Even LEOSA defers to state laws,

But it still allows carry, provided said state laws are followed (as if the person was a resident of said state). No, it doesn't allow all carry all the time wherever one wants to carry. Nobody is asking for that. There is no good reason why, if LEOSA (a federal law) exists, that it cannot be expanded to include everyone rather than just active/retired officers.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
The 2nd A gives you the right but you don't have the right to carry concealed unless the state has provisions in the law that allow it.

Maybe I’m confused, but I thought that the general thesis of our legal system is that anything that is not prohibited is allowed.

"SCOTUS says...". What did the writers of the BoR say? Local police powers permit sub-units (states, counties, cities) to restrict where, when, and how a citizen may keep or bear arms? Did they write that not all the terrible implements of a soldier may be kept, only weapons commonly owned for personal self defense and not unusually dangerous?

Present day laws or precedents are not the same as what the Constitution means, only what the government is currently saying it means.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
"SCOTUS says...". What did the writers of the BoR say? Local police powers permit sub-units (states, counties, cities) to restrict where, when, and how a citizen may keep or bear arms? Did they write that not all the terrible implements of a soldier may be kept, only weapons commonly owned for personal self defense and not unusually dangerous?

Present day laws or precedents are not the same as what the Constitution means, only what the government is currently saying it means.

If you want to debate Marbury v. Madison we'll never get anywhere.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

If you want to debate Marbury v. Madison we'll never get anywhere.

I'm saying that the current interpretation or application of the Constitution changes day by day. What was "The Law" previously is not inviolably permanent. e.g. Dred Scott and Roe.

The original words as written, as intended, and as understood at the time of enactment are the correct version. Not some newfangled finding by any court, even though court decisions do become what the government asserts the law means and how they apply it against the citizens.

Today there is no universal nationwide RKBA. States are free to require licenses, to restrict the types of arms one may possess, and to limit where one may exercise this right which Shall Not Be Infringed. We are getting closer to the true original meaning of the 2A with recent SCOTUS decisions. National reciprocity would be yet one more step forward, but it would lessen infringements rather than create new rights.

eta: I presume you are in fact familiar with the writings of the Founders on the topic. They clearly stated that people should not be prohibited from possessing arms, that it included weapons of war, was not restricted in location, and was not limited to personal self defense. Those writings do not square with post WWII gun laws nor with numerous court decisions.