National Reciprocity Poll

[Fideo]

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).

What does this mean for the current gun laws in NY. For example you are required to have a handgun license in order to possess a handgun in the state. In most areas (not NYC) they are not terribly difficult to get. But they are not issued to non-residents. As a non-resident, short of a few exceptions for sanctioned events you are absolutely not allowed to legally possess a handgun within the state.

Isn't that unequal treatment of residents vs non-residents?

 

[frozencesium]

No vote because really Congress is not the sole arbitrator or the 2a (thus why we have 3 branches of government), nor is the current bill in question unconstitutional given the SCOTUS's decisions in the past (which, even if incorect, do matter). The states and localities also have a say so (SCOTUS seems to agree with some restrictions similar to not shouting "fire" in a theater).

One can hold whatever oppinion one wishes, but remember that our oppinion only matters at the ballot box and we don't directly vote for SCOTUS justices. Belief and reality are very often 2 different things.

 

[jpk1md]

Isn't that unequal treatment of residents vs non-residents?

Read up on Corfield v. Coryell (1823) and I think it will help clarify P&I

 

[jpk1md]

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.

2A simply says that 2A Shall Not Be Infringed.......it didn't grant Congress the power/authority to pass laws regarding 2A.

Is it wrong that States are infringing upon 2A? Of course it is but its just as wrong to grant the Fed a power it was never granted in the Constitution.

Had the coutts simply taken Heller etc and stated that "Shall not be infringed" means what it says and left it at that I think it MAY have been acceptable <barely> for the courts to do so.....but thats not what happened nor did anyone have any reason to expect that they WOULD do so..we ALL knew this (Heller) would be a squeaker with 4+ Collectivist/Statists on the bench.....so what happened is that we have granted the Courts the power via judicial activism the power to decide what 2A actually means....and they've already rejected the Constitution/Amendment AS WRITTEN.

This argument has put us in a box that the courts will now decide the dimensions of.

 

[jpk1md]

BTT on the poll.

 

[Papi4baby]

Yeeeah, not voting dude. The question and answers are bit gear towards a specific direction.

 

[EL1227]

Thread revival ...

The most recent print issue of TownHall Magazine ...

BearingArms by Bob Owens - "The Second Amendment Should Trump State Lines"

All states should recognize the concealed carry permits of other states, and federal legislation shouldn't be needed to make it happen.

Maryland case mentioned prominently ...

 

[Mr H]

The problem there, is that the account is dramatically oversimplified, and context/detail all but absent.

 

[EL1227]

Agreed ...

The account of the MTA Police CCW stop has been well documented here on MDS and NRA-ILA, so there's no need to rehash it, but Mr. Owens DOES support the selection of Poll Question #3 or 4, depending his state of residence.

No: I'm (or am NOT) a MD Resident who believes this is Un Constitutional and granting the Fed Gov this power will backfire

 

[abean4187]

Haha, gotta love the wording of these questions.

Anyway, the FED already has complete control over our gun rights. If they wanted to pass a law saying that all concealed carry was illegal they could do so, doesn't matter what the constitution says.

Allowing them to expand our freedom will not backfire because we aren't giving them some new magical power by doing this. They ALREADY have this power, be it for good or bad. It is up to us to elect people that will use it for good.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Pointless, ridiculously restricting questions intended to force a point of view. Not a poll intended to find out what everyone thinks. Rather farcical, actually. I won't be answering.

 

[Gryphon]

The correct answer is not listed. The federal government/Congress should pass a national "shall issue" law to enforce fundamental and supposedly guaranteed 2A rights - and shut down individual States promulgated infringements. Then most of the banter about reciprocity will fall by the way side. It's well within Congress' authority to pass national laws consistent with ensuring the States do not infringe on fundamental/protected Constitutional rights (that's what they agreed to upon entering the Union), especially when SCOTUS appears loathe to play its part and strike down State infringements.

BTW - many of us know the OP loves to stir the pot, and argue Constitutional Republic issues as if 220+ years of jurisprudence bastardizing the concept to no end didn't exist. I won't be playing along.

 

[Tyeraxus]

Just so everybody's aware, this is a revival of a poll from 2011.

On the topic of federal jurisdiction, McDonald v. Chicago held that the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause incorporated the 2nd against the States. Therefore (as I see it), federal legislation protecting the 2A against infringement by state governments, such as universal reciprocity, is not unconstitutional. IANAL, YMMV, free advice is worth what you pay for it, etc.

 

[Mooseman]

This country was founded to have a weak central government and strong states rights. While I am not happy about Maryland's stance on the 2A, I feel that involving the federal government is a mistake.