CCRKBA says SCOTUS ruling should open National reciprocity

[TxAggie]

It's not just 2A, but when a court fails to base its ruling on the rule of law, it will have far reaches NG consequences.

There will be others who feel that this ruling advances their own pet cause, and that's when we'll know how serious the courts are taking this. I can fully see this issue being taken up as a class action suit with 20 million plus, well above the number that had an issue with gay marriage restrictions.

I'm curious how it would work to put this decision as part of our paperwork for a MD license, or exactly how the MSP Superintendent would reply to a letter directed directly at him and Frosh stating our intentions to Cary based on holding a license from another state and this decision. I'm tempted to write a letter just for clarification and to see the steam out of Frosh's ears. In it I would state that any harassment would be considered an assault on my basic human rights by the state and harassment. (Mind you, I wouldn't carry, just simply file a letter stating my right and intent to do so.)

For now, I'm waiting for the smarter guys to give us a good direction to take as a group.

 

[EL1227]

I would argue that we are in the bondage stage, depending on your political affiliation, sexual orientation, race, religion, and financial status.

 

[clandestine]

 

[kcbrown]

About now would say we are right between apathy and dependence

Hate to break it to you guys, but you can't go from courage to liberty without the means. Will alone is insufficient. That's why substantial liberty was hardly ever obtained throughout recorded history except during a relatively narrow period of time, when the technology of arms brought per-man parity to citizens versus governments.

Technology in arms has once again shifted in favor of governments, and massively so. Indeed, the world has never seen the degree of disparity in the per-man force of arms between citizens and governments that exists now.

If the disparity was too great to overcome in ancient times back before firearms, when governments were able to easily contain the citizenry through force of arms as a result of the training and strength required to effectively wield the arms of the time, it is most certainly, by orders of magnitude, too great today. For while the per-man power ratio of soldiers versus citizens back then might have been around five to one or so (meaning the average soldier back then would have been able to kill roughly five citizens before being killed himself -- and that figure is just a guess, not a concrete value), today it is in the thousands to one range thanks to drones, aircraft, WMDs, etc. And it continues to grow, as the cost of most of the weapon systems that give the government such an advantage is simply too prohibitive for the citizenry to individually bear.

Between that and the advances in surveillance technology, it is difficult to see how it will ever again be possible to transition from courage to liberty except in the aftermath of a worldwide nuclear or biological holocaust, when we'd once again be back to sticks, stones, swords, etc.

I just wanted to make it clear exactly what conditions the transition from courage to liberty would have to be made under. I personally see no way to regain liberty once it's lost. It looks to me like such loss truly is effectively permanent, to be regained only after perhaps many thousands of years. Doesn't mean we should give up (quite the opposite). But it does us no good to be blind to what we're truly up against.

 

[RustinRifle55]

In reading the court decision I don't see anything in it about gay marriage. The court did say a license in one state must be recognized in all other states under the 14th. So.........a carry conceal legal in Virginia would be legal in Maryland per majority decision.

 

[Bob A]

Hate to break it to you guys, but you can't go from courage to liberty without the means. Will alone is insufficient. That's why substantial liberty was hardly ever obtained throughout recorded history except during a relatively narrow period of time, when the technology of arms brought per-man parity to citizens versus governments.

Technology in arms has once again shifted in favor of governments, and massively so. Indeed, the world has never seen the degree of disparity in the per-man force of arms between citizens and governments that exists now.

If the disparity was too great to overcome in ancient times back before firearms, when governments were able to easily contain the citizenry through force of arms as a result of the training and strength required to effectively wield the arms of the time, it is most certainly, by orders of magnitude, too great today. For while the per-man power ratio of soldiers versus citizens back then might have been around five to one or so (meaning the average soldier back then would have been able to kill roughly five citizens before being killed himself -- and that figure is just a guess, not a concrete value), today it is in the thousands to one range thanks to drones, aircraft, WMDs, etc. And it continues to grow, as the cost of most of the weapon systems that give the government such an advantage is simply too prohibitive for the citizenry to individually bear.

Between that and the advances in surveillance technology, it is difficult to see how it will ever again be possible to transition from courage to liberty except in the aftermath of a worldwide nuclear or biological holocaust, when we'd once again be back to sticks, stones, swords, etc.

I just wanted to make it clear exactly what conditions the transition from courage to liberty would have to be made under. I personally see no way to regain liberty once it's lost. It looks to me like such loss truly is effectively permanent, to be regained only after perhaps many thousands of years. Doesn't mean we should give up (quite the opposite). But it does us no good to be blind to what we're truly up against.

There continues to be a considerable disparity of force between powers such as are exemplified by the US armed forces, and fairly primitive opponents such as a re found in places like Afghanistan.

The principles of asymmetric warfare are as applicable in one place as another.

The fact is, those who oppose the right of the people to legislate such strictures as they deem necessary, or to remove same, are not particularly numerous. While they do have their hands on many of the levers of power - for example, several seats on the benches of our highest courts, and some Federal positions - they are not in a position to turn the armed forces against the very large body of citizens who are in opposition to their policies, and whose legislatures support such opposition.

In Maryland we have a narrow view of the affair. Opposition to the well-entrenched power structure has been somewhat successful, but has not produced the stirring victories that many had hoped for. However, serious opposition has been in place for only a short time, and on a narrow issue. Even so, it has grown by a couple orders of magniture over the last couple years; Annapolis rallies have grown from fewer than a hundred people, to several thousand, in support of 2A issues, and this support has been undserscored by many of the state's Sheriffs, who are the highest-ranking elected law officers in the state. This is a big deal, whether or not it is seen as relevant by more than a few.

We've used the soapbox and the ballot box successfully, though there's room for more improvement. Many of our fellow citizens believe this to be true, whether or not they've ever heard of us. Our new governor is proof of that.

We're still far from the point where force disparity might be any kind of issue. And going up against an army is not the way this battle would succeed, in any case.

Our real enemies are few, though powerful and cunning. But the man in the street is getting very tired of their rule. And they're not getting any younger. Their criminal activities are being outed. Their momentum is slowing, and the trend is for a reversal of the pendulum's swing.

 

[Anotherpyr]

You guys and your logic. If logic were sufficient, we wouldn't be talking about this. We'd be talking about how it's nice to live in a free country instead of one ruled by control freaks.

 

[Bob A]

You guys and your logic. If logic were sufficient, we wouldn't be talking about this. We'd be talking about how it's nice to live in a free country instead of one ruled by control freaks.

All countries are ruled by control freaks.

The folks who wrote our founding document tried to keep some checks and balances on the control freaks. Using smoke and mirrors, a lot of that was damaged while they had people looking the other way. Been going on for hundreds of years, and they still haven't grabbed complete control.

But every generation has to keep up the fight, because there's never an end to the control freak parade.

 

[jbrown50]

In reading the court decision I don't see anything in it about gay marriage. The court did say a license in one state must be recognized in all other states under the 14th. So.........a carry conceal legal in Virginia would be legal in Maryland per majority decision.

I'm sure you realize that the four liberal justices on the SCOTUS would not apply that standard to handgun carry licenses. Kennedy would be the key to getting anything across. If the four conservative justices got a favorable read on Kennedy's stance they could come together and grant cert on a relevant 2A case. One of the reasons why I think Wrenn v. DC has a good chance of getting cert is because there's not states rights issue for Roberts or Alito to get hung up on.

 

[kcbrown]

There continues to be a considerable disparity of force between powers such as are exemplified by the US armed forces, and fairly primitive opponents such as a re found in places like Afghanistan.

Yes. And in neither place were the US armed forces actually defeated. Lack of political will to do whatever it takes to win is what ultimately led to our withdrawal from such places.

I assure you, such lack of political will is something that will not be found anywhere in the government when the core power of the US government is challenged by its citizenry, and actual defeat of government forces is mandatory for the citizenry to win the contest of arms. Combine those two together, and you wind up with a scenario for which experience in backwater parts of the world is worthless for informing as to the likely outcome.

In Maryland we have a narrow view of the affair. Opposition to the well-entrenched power structure has been somewhat successful, but has not produced the stirring victories that many had hoped for. However, serious opposition has been in place for only a short time, and on a narrow issue. Even so, it has grown by a couple orders of magniture over the last couple years; Annapolis rallies have grown from fewer than a hundred people, to several thousand, in support of 2A issues, and this support has been undserscored by many of the state's Sheriffs, who are the highest-ranking elected law officers in the state. This is a big deal, whether or not it is seen as relevant by more than a few.

We've used the soapbox and the ballot box successfully, though there's room for more improvement. Many of our fellow citizens believe this to be true, whether or not they've ever heard of us. Our new governor is proof of that.

We're still far from the point where force disparity might be any kind of issue. And going up against an army is not the way this battle would succeed, in any case.

I agree that such is not how it would succeed. My point really is that force of arms is not going to be how to accomplish our goals. If our goals cannot be accomplished through force of arms, then they must be accomplished peacefully. But peaceful achievement of our goals depends entirely on the willingness of the opposition to accede, precisely because they will win an armed contest.

Our real enemies are few, though powerful and cunning. But the man in the street is getting very tired of their rule. And they're not getting any younger. Their criminal activities are being outed. Their momentum is slowing, and the trend is for a reversal of the pendulum's swing.

And what, exactly, is the man on the street going to do when our enemies discover, if they haven't already, that there is nothing stopping them from simply ignoring the man in the street, and plainly refusing to step down when such is demanded of them?

 

[kcbrown]

You guys and your logic. If logic were sufficient, we wouldn't be talking about this. We'd be talking about how it's nice to live in a free country instead of one ruled by control freaks.

Logic controls what is possible in the real world. It does not shape the views of most people who act in it (though it does shape mine). This is why idiotic things are continuously tried in the real world despite all the logical conclusions that those things must fail.

(And no, I'm not referring to our attempts to sway the courts in the above. That is something that absolutely had to be tried).

Logic is not sufficient to accomplish something. That requires determination and means. Logic is often sufficient to show that something is not possible, however. If something is not possible, then it doesn't matter how much in the way of determination and means exists. Nothing turns the logically impossible into the possible, because logic is just an expression of the cause and effect laws that operate in the real world. When something is logically impossible, it means that cause and effect precludes that something. Cause and effect is utterly inescapable, and therefore that which is logically impossible really is impossible.

Here, we're not talking about that which is truly logically impossible as such. We are, however, talking about something that is historically very rare even under circumstances far more favorable than now. While logic will not say that prevailing under those conditions is impossible, it is logical to say that prevailing is far less likely than it ever has been. There comes a point where the probability of success is so low that it is indistinguishable from impossibility.

Hence, my argument about relative per-person power of arms.

 

[press1280]

One thing that just occurred to me about this is that if the NRA/SAF were to pursue lawsuits over reciprocity, they would be able to potentially bring the outside the home carry issue to other circuits(where numbers would presumably be in our favor). We've almost run out of may-issue circuits to get a split, so more cases regarding outside the home, the better.
But I think those orgs would rather have Congress pass reciprocity than try the courts, who will probably continue to stonewall.

 

[danb]

One thing that just occurred to me about this is that if the NRA/SAF were to pursue lawsuits over reciprocity, they would be able to potentially bring the outside the home carry issue to other circuits(where numbers would presumably be in our favor). We've almost run out of may-issue circuits to get a split, so more cases regarding outside the home, the better.
But I think those orgs would rather have Congress pass reciprocity than try the courts, who will probably continue to stonewall.

Ding ding ding. Winner.

But - shall issue won't pass at the federal level. I doubt the NRA/SAF wants it to pass because the Feds may impose standards.

 

[press1280]

Ding ding ding. Winner.

But - shall issue won't pass at the federal level. I doubt the NRA/SAF wants it to pass because the Feds may impose standards.

Not shall issue-reciprocity only. I don't recall any shall-issue bill even introduced in congress.

 

[swinokur]

And it doesn't cancel your home state licensing requirements. Only that all states honor each others permits. Still doesn't help those of us without G&S for a MD LTCH. Perhaps when other residents are allowed to carry in MD something might change.

Or not.

 

[danb]

Not shall issue-reciprocity only. I don't recall any shall-issue bill even introduced in congress.

There are a couple issues floating around your comment.

Congress passing reciprocity does not help people in may issue states. Some argue that the pressure of forced reciprocity would force some states to shall-issue. I am not so sure - some states will still resist (NJ, MD, NYC). A reciprocity bill that said: "states must recognize permits from other states so long as permits are issued in accordance with standards X,Y,Z" is but a hairs breath from saying all states must issue permits if residents meet standards X,Y,Z (of course, they are free to issue permits or be constitutional carry, but that would not get reciprocity). My sense is that reciprocity would pass, but the standards would be controversial - people would be nervous about increased requirements in their home state.

Now, getting a reciprocity case to the appellate level might break the logjam on the may-issue cases, if it opined on outside the home carry in the right way, and in the right circuit. Lots of maybes, but I like the idea.

 

[ezliving]

Will my nonresident Florida CCW permit now be valid in Maryland? Just as a quickie Las Vegas wedding is recognized as valid in Maryland.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[swinokur]

Any National reciprocity legislation most likely will not affect the laws regarding issuance of licenses to residents of states. Meaning MD residents will still have to have a MD permit to carry in MD.

My guess is no until something happens with either the GA or the MSP, a non resident permit will not be honored in MD for a MD resident. All previous National Reciprocity proposals I can recall didn't touch state laws regarding permit issuance to residents.

IANAL

 

[Colt Justice]

Awesome. So who's going to be the test case to see how the state handles it? I can't afford bail, and have others who depend on me, so it's not going to be me

 

[clandestine]

Any National reciprocity legislation most likely will not affect the laws regarding issuance of licenses to residents of states. Meaning MD residents will still have to have a MD permit to carry in MD.

My guess is no until something happens with either the GA or the MSP, a non resident permit will not be honored in MD for a MD resident. All previous National Reciprocity proposals I can recall didn't touch state laws regarding permit issuance to residents.

IANAL

I just want to clarify that my comments were not a jab at you, I just am jaded with the legal system in regards to the 2A.

I always enjoy your posts.