quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I'm in 100% agreement with 46and2 on this.

And I'm sorry for you guys in New Jersey, Connecticut, and the like, but I tell you this now. I will not want to sacrifice even a single element of my right to carry in Utah just so you can get some semblance of freedom in your restrictive states. Not a single bit. So if this law does that in any way, or even allows the possibility of the feds ever doing that in any way, then that's immediately a non-starter for me. And so far I haven't been convinced that that's not the case.

It will be interesting to see what actually gets passed if anything. My understanding (from awhile ago) was that the point of the law was to allow those who have a permit in their home state to carry in any other state, albeit subject to the laws of the state in which they are carrying.
It may have (probably has) morphed since then, but it wouldn’t do a damned thing for those in “may not be interested in issuing” counties.

For the rest of us, while CA gun laws in general suck, the carry laws aren’t bad at all. “No gun” signs do not have the force of law. If caught carrying they can ask you to leave. If you don’t, that’s trespassing. Up until the libtards passed SB707 two or three years ago, it was legal for a permit-holder to carry in schools. The problem with carry in CA is that permits are issued on a “May issue” basis by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (police chief if you live in the city, Sheriff if you live in the county. At one point there Fresno Sheriff got on the radio and said words to the effect of, “I don’t have budget for enough deputies, so if you are a law abiding citizen get into the office and get your permit.” San Francisco, LA, and San Diego haven’t said anything as far as I know, and if they did it would sound a lot more like FOAD.

From my understanding of the proposed law, UT residents visiting California (SF, LA, or SD too) could carry while the local residents could not. That is already the case for people from other counties, and with state preemption those restrictive locals can’t override the state’s reasonable carry laws. Today, LEOSA or being a Federal LE is pretty much the only way that a non-CA resident can carry legally here, so the law would be a big step forward for nonresidents.

My concern would be that if it were to pass and the state were to lose control over who could carry (legally) here, the relatively good laws on where one who has a permit can carry would get changed ala SB707, thus screwing those of us who do have CA permits.

Time will tell what passes, if anything, but I sure don’t see it helping CA residents.

I also live behind enemy lines, but feel that if residents of other states were able to carry, this would put pressure on our commie legislators to return our 2nd amendment rights. Also as the supreme court starts to become less leftist, the numerous court challenges to the draconian laws would be decided in our favor. Ginsburg could retire or die at any time, which would open a major blockage to freedom.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
An interesting article:
Anti-Reciprocity Op-Ed Makes Excellent Case For Reciprocity
Posted at 12:00 pm on December 7, 2017 by Tom Knighton

...[snip]...

The numbers of guns on the streets of New York, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Trenton, Baltimore, and Honolulu will skyrocket. In Los Angeles County, the projected number of lawfully concealed guns will go from fewer than 500 to 400,000.

In New York City, which today has very few legal guns carried on the streets, approximately 400,000 will be if the bill passed by the House becomes law.
Stop. Just stop.

I have no experience with New York, but if his numbers are right, good guys legally carrying in Los Angeles might outnumber the dirtbags carrying illegally for a change. Sounds like a good thing...

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Massie not voting yes is pretty telling.

The head scratcher is it that he seems to be all about politicians and staffers carrying guns in DC from anywhere, though. Double standard? Sure sounds like it.

https://massie.house.gov/newsr...tion-reciprocity-act

Jerry, I read the article that you linked and it sounds like he is against special privileges for politicians and wants DC to recognize anybody’s permit from their home state. Now maybe the legislation he is pushing doesn’t match the article, but what he says in the article doesn’t sound bad. Am I missing something?

I have mixed feelings about the topic. I like the idea of reciprocity and even of standardizing the laws and training requirements. However, I'm not a fan of limiting or modifying an enumerated right. This, of course, brings up the discussion of concealed carry being a right or a privilege. Frankly, it all gets confusing, especially in the densely populated city centers where firearms are not a culture and what many in rural America would consider common sense can be a complete unknown. Anyways, a good friend of mine wrote a blog on H.R. 38 and S. 466, https://nationalfirearmslaw.co...procity-legislation/ It seems so close, yet so far away.

Here's hoping!

My take, it's similar to making the concealed license transportable to all states just like a drivers license.

With a DL your state issues the license, rules for obtaining a license are the perview of the your state. It sets up requirements such as age, insurance, speed limits, parking rules testing procedure, etc are all the laws of the state in which you reside. So to obtain a state carry permit you simply comply with the rules in your state of residence.

When you carry outside your state then you must abide by the laws of that state, and the national reciprocity of the DL means when you enter NY you don't have to have a NY non residents drivers license, take any tests, take out additional insurance coverage etc. You just need a valid license from your state, and while in NY you have to abide by the laws of NY.

So say you are visiting NY and the speed limit on the freeway is 55 then you have to drive 55.
It doesn't matter that back in PA you can drive 65 on a similar road. The rules of NY apply when in NY.

You would still be subject to the laws of the state in which you reside while you are home in that state, and when you travel the laws of the state in which you are in while transporting to or through that state.

The law would prohibit NJ, NY from effectively restricting or banning carry from out of state persons with a legal lawful permit to carry in their home state, which is what current laws do, ban out of state possession and carry.

Key to this is the elimination of states negotiating reciprocity deals. This is important because these deals are used by gun hate states to consistently turn down gun rights states.

NY does this and allows no other state reciprocity for carry licenses in NY effectively a ban as no state has agreed to be subject to NY demands. So if you want your FL CCP to be valid in NY, the boys in Albany demand Tallahassee to change FL laws to suit them, which they know won't happen thus they have in effect banned carry even possession for out of state people.

It appears that this law will stop that practice, in effect doing the opposite of what many fear here and eliminates ban states from restricting travel in order to press their agenda on other states.

It doesn't appear to put any further burdens on gun owners, nor does it appear to have any caveats or gotchas that give the feds any additional powers.

As to concern it's a gateway to more regulation, it's my contention that if DC wants additional laws in place they don't need national reciprocity to get them. We have the Brady act, NFA, etc, the feds can step on gun rights any time they choose, they don't need a simple law like this as an excuse or gateway.

It will also stop NY and NJ from making felons of otherwise innocent people when travelling through those states (and others as well).

JMO this is good, it checkmates IL, NY, NJ, CA. though...

quote:

Originally posted by PeterGV:
It would be a tremendous convenience if this law were to pass. But I don’t give it any realistic chance of passing the senate. I’m sad about that, but I’m afraid it’s reality.

I don't either.

Remember, they rules for them and rules for us.

And never the twain shall meet.

Remember "OL Nasties" comment about it being against the law, but they have RULES than make it OK?

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
My take, it's similar to making the concealed license transportable to all states just like a drivers license.

With a DL your state issues the license, rules for obtaining a license are the perview of the your state. It sets up requirements such as age, insurance, speed limits, parking rules testing procedure, etc are all the laws of the state in which you reside. So to obtain a state carry permit you simply comply with the rules in your state of residence.

Not true. The fed.gov issues requirements:
Real ID Act
Also:
Federal requirements for a CDL

Once you concede that Congress has the power to recognize and force states to accept concealed permits, you concede that they have the power to regulate them. It would only take the first time the dems regained control of Congress to implement restrictions.

But, as I've stated before, this bill is going nowhere. I would be shocked if it ever came up for a vote in the Senate and really, really shocked if it could garner 50 votes, let alone the 60 it would have to have to overcome the dem filibuster that is guaranteed.

I just received an email from Patty Murray’s office:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R.38, Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which is currently pending in the United States Senate. I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.

In the Senate, this legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of that Committee, I want to assure you that I will be following the progress of this bill and will keep your views in mind if this or related legislation comes before the full Senate for consideration.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senator

I am against it because it is impermissible federal meddling in state matters. We don't like it when the feds meddle over things we don't like and shouldn't be for it when the fed mandate things to the states just because we like what they are doing.

Federalism and states' rights are important. Allowing this is another drip wearing those away.

Yes, another vote from Texas, we don’t need it. I see no reason to let the Federal government have any more say in what I do. My state is enough and has no input from Chuckie or Nancy.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I am against it because it is impermissible federal meddling in state matters. We don't like it when the feds meddle over things we don't like and shouldn't be for it when the fed mandate things to the states just because we like what they are doing.

Federalism and states' rights are important. Allowing this is another drip wearing those away.

While I agree. The Bill of Rights should apply equally to every American no matter what state they happen to reside in.

quote:

Originally posted by Spokane228:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I am against it because it is impermissible federal meddling in state matters. We don't like it when the feds meddle over things we don't like and shouldn't be for it when the fed mandate things to the states just because we like what they are doing.

Federalism and states' rights are important. Allowing this is another drip wearing those away.

While I agree. The Bill of Rights should apply equally to every American no matter what state they happen to reside in.

In my simplistic ignorance, I tend to agree -- there shouldn't be licenses to begin with. No license requirement, no reciprocity needed.

To me, this is Fed enforcing access to an inalienable right.

I am 150% behind this.

But, to be fair, I would be willing to give up my support for this bill the day they repeal LEOSA. If it's good for one, it's good for all.

When I saw Jhe's post I was going to go here. But since you put this out, I'd just add detail.

Since the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, the Federal Government has both the authorization and the (heretofore ignored) responsibility to enforce it. I would consider it perfectly valid, with no 10th Amendment issue, for Congress to pass a law preempting all state and local laws that have any hint of infringing on individual's rights under the second amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:

quote:

Originally posted by Spokane228:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I am against it because it is impermissible federal meddling in state matters. We don't like it when the feds meddle over things we don't like and shouldn't be for it when the fed mandate things to the states just because we like what they are doing.

Federalism and states' rights are important. Allowing this is another drip wearing those away.

While I agree. The Bill of Rights should apply equally to every American no matter what state they happen to reside in.

In my simplistic ignorance, I tend to agree -- there shouldn't be licenses to begin with. No license requirement, no reciprocity needed.

To me, this is Fed enforcing access to an inalienable right.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I am against it because it is impermissible federal meddling in state matters. We don't like it when the feds meddle over things we don't like and shouldn't be for it when the fed mandate things to the states just because we like what they are doing.

Federalism and states' rights are important. Allowing this is another drip wearing those away.

Something to think about, as much as I don't like Fed control it might be a stretch to call it Fed overreach by state reciprocity.