National Reciprocity - Commentary

[JohnyMac]

"Opinions are like assholes, everybody's gotz one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks." Unknown quote

I didn't want to post my opinion on another post here encouraging forum members to sign the petition for National Reciprocity so I started a separate subject line to debate among us Uunchainedpreppers Forum members.

In short I do not support it. I believe it is unconstitutional and will be found so when it eventually winds its way to the US Supreme Court.

My reasoning is that it is just one more way that the Federal Government telling The States what to do. If a citizenry of a particular state wants to expend or limit firearm carry they can petition then vote for it.

Now I do realize that the main argument for the National Reciprocity law is that many states are not following the Bill of Rights - specifically the Second Amendment. So to force states to do so, this law is necessary. I disagree because there are legal avenues that citizens can take, albeit cumbersome in many cases, to fight this battle within their own States on up to the Federal Supreme Court.

In closing, please understand that I am a pro 2A guy and carry a concealed weapon legally and in some cases not (In the wrong State by circumstances out of my control, e.g. bridge washes out so I have to detour throw MY, MD, etc) legally. I also believe that States that require a CCW or some other permit is a violation of the Bill of Rights and should be fought by its citizenry. 

 

 

   

[JoJo]

 First let me say I do not have a concealed carry permit and I disagree with you. Why?, because I lived in New Jersey for 35 years. There I had a firearms purchase permit and a one time pistol purchase permit. Then as now you could only transport your guns if you are going to a shooting range. You must sign in with date and time and sign out with date and time. You mist have these permits on you when transporting. You have to go straight home without stopping for anything for more the a minute or two to buy milk or similar. You can't stop at grandma's house for a short visit.
 I was always scared to death when going to a match or just to practice.
New Jerseyites and New Yorker's believe there are only two types of people who have guns, Cops and Robbers.
 I don't believe the federal government should interfere in our lives except when our rights are stepped on.
By the way having lived in NJ and NY most of my life I still get nervous when I transport guns or go into a gun shop.   

[pkveazey]

My opinion on this subject is: Any place that doesn't allow me to carry my firearm is not part of the United States. I have no desire to leave the United States. There are many businesses that I avoid because they don't allow firearms. To me, they are not located inside the US. I think most people will notice that the States that most often Violate the Second Amendment are located in the North where they are the smartest and know better than anyone how people must live. The second amendment is a NATIONWIDE RIGHT. To keep and bear arms clearly means that you can carry a weapon at all times inside the US. In today's world, people have become so accustomed to having their second amendment rights stomped on, they have started believing that its OK. Well, its not OK.

[JohnyMac]

All good comments gents. 

Others thoughts?

[Grudgie]

Doesn't the bill of rights only apply to federal government? I thought the states could do whatever they want. If that's the case then nation wide gun carry is unconstitutional.

[CJS06]

I do believe that we should be able to carry in all 50 states....and as long as we have not done anything to preclude gun ownership (violent felons, etc) everyone should be able to carry without a permit. I also believe that everyone should get training before they carry. A majority of the people I see with cary permits couldnt find their ass with both hands....in a phone booth... when it comes to competency with the deadly weapon they have chosen to carry.  I do not have a good solution to this.

The Bill of Rights does govern the States actions as they have the ability to generate their own laws as long as they do not violate the standards set by the BOR.  That said I do feel that in some ways the National reciprocity act is "good" it also is in reality unconstitutional.  States that limit our 2a rights need to be corrected, not have one unconstitutional federal act to fix another unconstitutional state act.

[JohnyMac]

Kind of like Sanctuary Cities CJS?

It is an interesting debate and appreciate the dialog.

On another note: I 100% agree that many - Will also write, probably the majority   - can not manipulate or shoot straight the weapon they carry. Case in point, some of the worse shots are police. 

[pkveazey]

If you read the Constitution, it lays out what rights take precedence over the States(The Bill OF RIGHTS). Then it says that everything else is left up to "The several States". They used the term several states because there were only 13 States at the time. In today's world it would be written "The States". The States have no right to pass laws that alter the Bill of Rights. I don't care if somebody doesn't like it, its just the way it is.

[Grudgie]

If you read the Constitution, it lays out what rights take precedence over the States(The Bill OF RIGHTS). Then it says that everything else is left up to "The several States". They used the term several states because there were only 13 States at the time. In today's world it would be written "The States". The States have no right to pass laws that alter the Bill of Rights. I don't care if somebody doesn't like it, its just the way it is.

It's not clear cut. This is what I am seeing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

"Incorporation, in U.S. law, is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. When it was first ratified, the Bill of Rights only protected the rights it enumerated from federal infringement, allowing states and local governments to abridge them. However, beginning in 1897 with Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago, various portions have been held to be incorporated against state and local government through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."

The truth is, there is no clear cut answer. Any outcomes will be entirely based on the whims of the judges at the time. There is no law here, only opinions. And the opinions with the biggest guns backing them up gets their way.

[Jackalope]

I look at the concept of national handgun reciprocity in the same way that I look at Driver's licenses.  If I can legally possess a firearm in my State, then I should be able to do so throughout the entire country.  Technically, a vehicle is just as dangerous as a firearm.  How did the entire Driver's license nationwide legality get approved?  And driving isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, so firearm possession should be a slam dunk.

[JoJo]

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments.

 So what your saying is that the states can limit speech and impose a state religion on the states citizens?
Justice Ginsberg is old but I didn't think she was that old.

[grizz]

We do not need to get permission to use any of the other Rights granted us in the BoR and no others are regulated differently from state to state

Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding "Shall Not Be Infringed"??

[JohnyMac]

All good arguments gentleman.

I like what you have dug up JoJo. Specifically the Barron v. Baltimore and United States v. Cruikshank.

Now the question is: Why do we need a law if the law already exists? We will have to see how the National Reciprocity statute is written.

Then we have the Patriot Act and some other nefarious laws that are attacking our fourth and fifth amendments at the federal and state laws.

Maybe we need a statute that reaffirms the original Ten Amendments to the Bill of Rights. Kind of like a "RESET".

Ah wishful thinking on my part. There is no way that the Elites in Government will relinquish their power to the citizenry deplorables.

Interesting debate gentlemen. What we learn here can only help our arguments with our family and friends when and if that National Reciprocity Bill comes up. Bookmark this subject line. 

[Nemo]

SCOTUS said a good while back that BoR was applicable to the states and 14A makes it solid.

Now, to get the local state and fed judges (including all Fed CoA) to give a strict scrutiny to 2A issues is the problem. Many many are trying to get by with mid level.

I am confident we will get another judge on SCOTUS before Trump leaves.  That will give a solid 5-4 (depending on Roberts, maybe 6-3, in favor of the idea the 2A means what it says.

The idea that govt says CCW permits are good nationwide should put some push behind the idea that they really are and should be treated as such in the brains of state legislatures.  I believe it will also put much push behind the idea of no permit carry in many more states.

With 13 or 15 states already "constitutional carry" states I do not think there will be some type of national standard on state requirements for permit/carry.  I believe Ga and Va will be on the no permit required list in the next couple years.  But much depends how this November goes.  At least in Va.

As far as the statute hitting the RESET button on BoR, I think if things go well and we have Trump for a total of 8, that will be effectively hit by the 7-2.

Nemo