National Reciprocity Poll

[swinokur]

The bill became law several days ago, so I assume a separate bill to amend the current one would have to happen.

Please explain how P&I applies here but not mandating the states to honor another state's permit. Isn't honoring another state's permit the same as allow non residents to Constituitonal carry? That's a privilege isn't it?

If you only address carry with no regard to permitting, In both cases residents of other states are being given the privilege to carry in the other states. If you say discriminating against non residents of a state is unconstitutional, in WY's case, how can mandating any other state to allow non residents to carry in any form be different? if they allow one, they have to allow both by my read.

 

[Inigoes]

The bill became law several days ago, so I assume a separate bill to amend the current one would have to happen.

Link?

 

[swinokur]

Link?

Bottom of Post #37

 

[Inigoes]

Bottom of Post #37

I got confused with the Wyoming statute and the one in the Federal House of Representatives H.R. 822, that Patrick started a thread over.

 

[swinokur]

 

[Inigoes]

Don't laugh!

I was all giddy because, I was thinking my timing was impeccable winning a personal battle

 

[Biggfoot44]

SC bill also has residency requirement.

Look up "Armoured Car Interstate Commerace Act of 1994 ". . The relavent portions refer to " those persons ingaged to transportation of money , or valuable goods for hire, in interstate commerace" may carry firearms, of the type, and type of ammunition such as is legal for them to carry in their home jurisdicton, or jurisdiction of primary place of bussiness , provided that said permit ( blah, blah referenced above).

Law as passed under the Interstate Commerace clause of Const. Prior there was a serious bottleneck to (legal) IC , as states such as NY, or NJ had a 1.5- 2yr process for issueing said permits. Wich ment that the majority of interstate shipment were made illegally, but "usually" were looked the other way out of professional courtsy . Prior to the Enactment there were several high profile cases of NY State arresting crews making Internation shipments.

 

[jpk1md]

The bill became law several days ago, so I assume a separate bill to amend the current one would have to happen.

Please explain how P&I applies here but not mandating the states to honor another state's permit. Isn't honoring another state's permit the same as allow non residents to Constituitonal carry? That's a privilege isn't it?

If you only address carry with no regard to permitting, In both cases residents of other states are being given the privilege to carry in the other states. If you say discriminating against non residents of a state is unconstitutional, in WY's case, how can mandating any other state to allow non residents to carry in any form be different? if they allow one, they have to allow both by my read.

Art 4 Sec 2 P&I has nothing to do with honoring another states permit but rather the issue for example of not descriminating between residents of one state over another.

In other words the residency requirement to CC is unconstitutional under P&I

In the actual Reciprocity Thread this was illustrated with a pile of historical references, Federalist Papers and Case Law.

 

[swinokur]

Well isn't a state's refusal to honor my permit discriminatory? If 30 states recognize my permit but 20 don't, that seems pretty discriminatory.

How can one state be discriminating against me be illegal under P&I but the others who deny the right are not?

 

[Harpoon76]

A government that is strong enough to give us what we want is strong enough to take it all away.... or a quote that goes something like that is the first thing that popped into my head

I concur with this sentiment.

 

[jpk1md]

Well isn't a state's refusal to honor my permit discriminatory? If 30 states recognize my permit but 20 don't, that seems pretty discriminatory.

How can one state be discriminating against me be illegal under P&I but the others who deny the right are not?

If you want more info please feel free to browse through the Reciprocity Thread.

In a nutshell a State for example cannot levy different property taxes on residents and non residents solely based upon residency.

Another example is Md CCW Permit....it treats everyone like shit regardless of residency, thats perfectly constitutional.

Its not that a state must recognize your permit from another state, rather the state cannot pass laws that treat citizens and non citizens unequally (Generally speaking).

 

[swinokur]

In a nutshell a State for example cannot levy different property taxes on residents and non residents solely based upon residency.

Well how can a state that does not recognize one state's permit ie NV not recognize my UT non resident permit? That fits your definition of treating citizens and non citizens differently.

Or if I was a VA resident NV still does recognize my VA permit. How are taxes different than NV treating me differently if I am from another stateas far as carry goes?

Looks the same to me. You can't have your cake and eat it to can you?

 

[jpk1md]

Well how can a state that does not recognize one state's permit ie NV not recognize my UT non resident permit? That fits your definition of treating citizens and non citizens differently.

Or if I was a VA resident NV still does recognize my VA permit. How are taxes different than NV treating me differently if I am from another stateas far as carry goes?

Looks the same to me. You can't have your cake and eat it to can you?

It has nothing to do with the interaction BETWEEN different states laws but rather that each state has an obligation not to descriminate in its own laws in preference for its own citizens over the citizens of other states.

Corfield v. Coryell (1823) is a great example of this.

Again, this has been hashed to death in the Reciprocity thread....this is a Poll.

 

[swinokur]

I believe that is exactly what is happening when a state treats it's residents who do not have to be permitted differently than other states' residents who do have to be permitted to carry in said state.. That is not a state to state interaction. it's one state.

Same thing in my mind .

Isn't the purpose of a poll here on MDS to encourage discourse? If not what's the purpose of the poll? this is a discussion forum, is it not?

 

[rch184]

State Rights Verses Feds!

I believe the federal governmment has no right to take states rights away but could issue national permits. I do believe this would be a constitutional issue!

 

[jpk1md]

I believe the federal governmment has no right to take states rights away but could issue national permits. I do believe this would be a constitutional issue!

Help me understand how allowing the Fed Gov the power to issue CCW would not be infringing upon the States?

I agree with you 100% that the Fed Gov has no right/power granted to it to strip the States of a state function/power but I don't see how the above can "cohabitate" for lack of a better way of putting it.

 

[Llyrin]

I basically believe that ANY additional power granted the Feds will be abused sooner or later.

 

[Maverick0313]

I basically believe that ANY additional power granted the Feds will be abused sooner or later.

Absolutely.

 

[jdramsey]

I basically believe that ANY additional power granted the Feds will be abused sooner or later.

Yep yep yep yep +1

Oh and IBTL

 

[gtodave]

Didn't read all 3 pages (nor the 5 pages in the other thread) completely, so sorry if this has been covered.

The catch is this: The Fed gov't IS the sole arbiter of our 2A rights....the 2A happens to come from the Constitution. Anything a State does to limit our rights is in direct conflict with rules set by the Constitution for Federal laws. The fact that they are considering using a bastardized version of a clause in the Constitution to try to pass this bill is concerning, but ultimately it is the Fed's authority to enforce the rules to any State that deviates from the 2A anyways.