National Reciprocity - It Begins

ProShooter · Feb 22, 2011

Very interesting stuff!

Fodder4Thought · Feb 22, 2011

smokey0118 said:
ehhh, why would i write another letter if i have 10 of the same letter sitting at home already?

Heh. Well said.

Boondock Saint · Feb 22, 2011

gprimr1 said:
Not to justify the waiting period, but have you ever written a letter or something, then went to bed, then the next day woke up and said "Damn I was really an ass in this?"

Waiting period has nothing at all do to with something resembling a cool down period. It was written to allow FFLs/MSP a chance to transmit paperwork.

Goose Guy · Feb 22, 2011

From how I read it, sounds like they are trying to do this like a driver's licence. If you can carry (drive) in that state, it shows you should able to do it as well in any state that is shall issue and be recognized there. (hopefully that made sense)

Sounds good.

HardHatMan · Feb 22, 2011

Inigoes said:
Oh, DC will be hating this amendment

So will a lot of counties in California, and most def NYC.

Patrick · Feb 22, 2011

Goose Guy said:
From how I read it, sounds like they are trying to do this like a driver's licence. If you can carry (drive) in that state, it shows you should able to do it as well in any state that is shall issue and be recognized there. (hopefully that made sense)

Sounds good.

Yes.

Also, declared authority for this bill is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: "Commerce Clause". Already filed.

I know many hate the Commerce Clause, but it works. As a side note, it's going to be hard to argue against that authority when the liberals are using the Commerce Clause to force you to buy health insurance under the theory that by not engaging in commerce, you are actually engaging in commerce.

So they are going to have to hold their tongues on that one.

I'll say that these bills are being crafted carefully. These are not just being put out there to make happy talk. They are meant to survive review. My impression was that the staff working this are exceptionally knowledgeable about gun issues. I was surprised at the detail being considered on the other end of the phone.

jonnyl · Feb 22, 2011

gprimr1 said:
If you had a Maryland permit, it would be valid in any state. It just means the bill does not compell Maryland to issue permits.

Just to clarify, any state that issues permits. I think you're still screwed in the few no-issue states.

Fideo · Feb 22, 2011

What is interesting in this for me is what this would mean for New York State. Under current law you cannot even possess a handgun in NYS without a pistol permit, which are not issued to non-residents of the state. To clarify the pistol permits unless restricted also allow you to carry in addition to granting you permission to purchase said handgun. They link the guns SN to your pistol permit, which also states any restrictions like home and business only. In rural counties the sheriffs will usually issue unrestricted although it is entirely up to their discretion as NY is a May Issue state.

As I understand this bill it would allow me as a VA resident with a permit to carry in NY, a state which currently doesn't even allow me to possess a handgun in.

How would this play out?

Patrick · Feb 22, 2011

Fideo said:
What is interesting in this for me is what this would mean for New York State. Under current law you cannot even possess a handgun in NYS without a pistol permit, which are not issued to non-residents of the state.

As I understand this bill it would allow me as a VA resident with a permit to carry in NY, a state which currently doesn't even allow me to possess a handgun in.

How would this play out?

Carefully.

Some lucky winners will earn the title of "Test Case". :tdown:

Nothing in this bill stops onerous carry regulation in a given state. The possibilities for games are limitless. The closest the bill can possibly get is to say that reciprocal permits must be honored at the highest level offered by the state. So unrestricted. If New York or Maryland give out non-restricted permits to retired or off-duty LEOs, judges, politicians or celebrities (ahem...New York City) then visiting permits work at that level, too.

This is a natural limit. NY can ratchet down their laws and make it hard for visitors to carry, but in doing so they will be targeting their own carriers: the cops and the bankers. That might not play well.

swinokur · Feb 22, 2011

Patrick et al

How does this comport to the 14th amendment as far as due process?

How can congress use the 14th amendment to give permits to only some citizens without running afoul of the due process portion? Seems like it can't be split.

05FLHT · Feb 22, 2011

jonnyl said:
Just to clarify, any state that issues permits. I think you're still screwed in the few no-issue states.

Hello, from Illinois. :patriot:

Fideo · Feb 22, 2011

Patrick said:
Carefully.

Some lucky winners will earn the title of "Test Case".

Nothing in this bill stops onerous carry regulation in a given state. The possibilities for games are limitless. The closest the bill can possibly get is to say that reciprocal permits must be honored at the highest level offered by the state. So unrestricted. If New York or Maryland give out non-restricted permits to retired or off-duty LEOs, judges, politicians or celebrities (ahem...New York City) then visiting permits work at that level, too.

This is a natural limit. NY can ratchet down their laws and make it hard for visitors to carry, but in doing so they will be targeting their own carriers: the cops and the bankers. That might not play well.

The interesting thing there other than the Permit to Possess System, is that the method of approval varies by county. It is up to the Sheriff. For instance in my home county, I would have no issue getting an unrestricted permit if I were still a resident. Not only is it a 2A friendly country; I also could use several Officer's I grew up with as references on the application. Outside of NYC permits are not just for the rich and famous.

I agree that someone would probably be made a test case.... most likely in the NYC area where city law comes in to play as well.

One problem there and everywhere is that police officers don't know the laws they are to enforce. I had a friend who is an officer tell me that 10 rd magazines were illegal as it could only be maximum of 10rds as in 9+1rd.... this is not true as the law is pertaining to "detachable magazines holding more than 10rds"; it does not mention maximum capacity of the weapon+magazine, but the officer in question is a good friend and I didn't want to push the subject. I understand them not knowing all laws; how could they with the number of laws we have in any given jurisdiction.

Patrick · Feb 22, 2011

swinokur said:
Patrick et al

How does this comport to the 14th amendment as far as due process?

How can congress use the 14th amendment to give permits to only some citizens without running afoul of the due process portion? Seems like it can't be split.

Congress is not giving permits. That's where the states come in and why this bill cannot give you a permit if Maryland views you as unworthy.

Congress is using its power over interstate commerce to enforce reciprocity between the states. You can probably come up with a dozen ways that interstate reciprocity could be tied to commerce, and all of them would be less strained that the ObamaCare individual mandate.

Everyone needs to view this for what it is: a first step. A huge first step. They considered a lot of ideas and had to narrow down to the ones that would work right now.

This bill avoids issuing permits for a reason. One of them is our Woollard case (they are aware and are not looking to moot our fight). A strong judicial victory is the best defense we have against future legislative intent.

So we need to fight. This is going to help our case tremendously - the Supreme Court is going to take heed, as will the lower courts. Soon there will only be one state where US persons cannot carry arms - Illinois. And from what I have read recently, there is tremendous pressure to change that this year. The Democratic Senate Leader is possibly going to let something pass. Yes...there is a chance Illinois could become Shall-Issue.

Maryland is on the losing end here. The tide has turned. Anyone here think our "leaders" want to be the tip of any spear?

frozencesium · Feb 22, 2011

Well, given the kruft in the MD legislature right now, I'd say yes...Gansler and maybe OweMally want to be at the tip of the spear. I don't for one hot minute believe Gansler is ignorant of the 41 states that are shall-issue and the domino cases falling against his ideals, but he'll still fight (even if it's a pathetic attempt).

If nothing else, being on the pointy end will ensure folks like Frosh and his cronies will support them in their next elections and they can cry to the public "look, we tried our hardest to keep evil, nasty, murdering guns off the streets, but the stupid hillbilly Republicans forced us to let blood flow like wine in MD streets! Blame them!".

swinokur · Feb 22, 2011

I guess Slaughterhouse is still alive.

:sad20:

alucard0822 · Feb 22, 2011

I can't wait to be wrongfully arrested in MD or DC if this passes :innocent0

frozencesium · Feb 22, 2011

only guns and money updated his blog post, the text of the bill is there.

Edit:
Oh, and I'm sorry for the socialists, but it didn't take 'em 2,200 pages either

ToneGrail · Feb 22, 2011

Patrick said:
Carefully.

Some lucky winners will earn the title of "Test Case".

Nothing in this bill stops onerous carry regulation in a given state. The possibilities for games are limitless. The closest the bill can possibly get is to say that reciprocal permits must be honored at the highest level offered by the state. So unrestricted. If New York or Maryland give out non-restricted permits to retired or off-duty LEOs, judges, politicians or celebrities (ahem...New York City) then visiting permits work at that level, too.

This is a natural limit. NY can ratchet down their laws and make it hard for visitors to carry, but in doing so they will be targeting their own carriers: the cops and the bankers. That might not play well.

Yeah. Chucky Schumer wouldn't have it! God forbid he relinquish HIS permit.

Inigoes · Feb 22, 2011

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.
(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed
firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.
(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.
(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.
(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

I like

Hopalong · Feb 22, 2011

frozencesium said:
only guns and money updated his blog post, the text of the bill is there.

Edit:
Oh, and I'm sorry for the socialists, but it didn't take 'em 2,200 pages either

The people crafting the Health Insurance reform law didn't want anyone to read it. The people crafting this law want everyone to read it.

National Reciprocity - It Begins

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

New Dad!!

Ultimate Member

Skooma lord

FBHO

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

MSI Executive Member

In a State of Bliss

Member

Active Member

MSI Executive Member

BBQ Czar

In a State of Bliss

For great Justice

BBQ Czar

MSI, NRA, & SAF Member

Head'n for the hills

Man of Many Nicknames

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics