Yep. This. I was celebrating the day Obergefell was decided, but for a different reason. Now that carry outside the home is a recognized right, the 14A + Obergefell precedent makes national reciprocity a slam dunk.This is where there’s going to be a funny crossover among idealogical stripes.
See Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Obergefell v. Hodges: Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all states must license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state.supreme.justia.com
Reciprocity Rules on Permits.
- Thread starter P-12 Norm
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Oct 25, 2012
- 3,366
To be fair I can't vote in TX. There is a process that I can go though to rectify that.
I do understand your point though.
Big blowout elections would be great, but there’s nothing on the horizon that suggests we have a sixty-seat majority in the senate in the near future. Which means Chuck Schumer still runs the show (minus destroying the filibuster, something neither party should wish for). Just like MD going shall issue, litigation is where it’s at.
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
Illinois also requires 16 hours of training for residents or non-residenpts.
However, Illinois will give you up to eight hours of credit for various NRA firearms courses you can take, or prior military experience or certain LTC classes from certain states as well.
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
Folks,
Dont plan on congress giving you National Reciprocity anytime soon.
Republicans will have to have control of the house, senate and presidency (Trifecta) before that will happen.
If we can get 34 states to pass constitutional carry and then have those same 34 states have a constitutional convention, then maybe we can pass a new amendment that will force constitutional carry nationwide. We have 25 now, 9 more to go!
Dont plan on congress giving you National Reciprocity anytime soon.
Republicans will have to have control of the house, senate and presidency (Trifecta) before that will happen.
If we can get 34 states to pass constitutional carry and then have those same 34 states have a constitutional convention, then maybe we can pass a new amendment that will force constitutional carry nationwide. We have 25 now, 9 more to go!
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
I agree, litigation is what it’s going to take to force the issue. However, if a state offers a nonresident license to carry option, the courts may decide to side with the state. If the state has no nonresident license to carry option then they might lose a reciprocity case.
The courts also may allow a State to choose between having a reciprocity program or offering nonresident LTC.
To be fair, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you can.
It's all just tricky because Thomas really hates the reasoning behind Obergefell.
I hope he doesn’t go there…
LMFTFY
It depends on what you define as a civil right.
Self defense is a civil right.
The problem is Thomas wants that overturned, and like a few others on the court.This is where there’s going to be a funny crossover among idealogical stripes.
See Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Obergefell v. Hodges: Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all states must license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state.
There is a strong argument in Obergefell (I can't remember if it was made, or it was purely on 14 grounds), also with reciprocity
Article IV, section 1 (COTUS)
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
So Congress can generally regulate the full and credit section. I think a good argument can be made absent congress passing a law restricting reciprocity of firearms permits/carry licenses, or recognizing marriage licenses from another state, that states should have to recognize both carry licenses and marriage licenses for gay couples.
If you argue that "those gay people don't meet the requirements to be married in my state", then at a minimum you can make the argument also that "you don't meet the requirements to have a carry permit in my state". Whether that is you aren't a resident, or you don't have sufficient training for the license requirements to be equivalent, etc.
I've got no idea where any of this is going to shake out.
I think states not issuing non-resident permits is probably riper for getting that overturned than reciprocity. IMHO, I think reciprocity is on the table, I think it'll just be harder to thread the needle on it.
Sure I agree. Just saying you said which civil rights. Some states consider things like not discriminating due to sexual orientation as being a civil right. Some states disagree that it is a civil right.
Right now, some states still disagree that self defense is a civil right. SCOTUS just said they disagree. The court also just rolled things back and said women don't have a right to choose. That had been a civil right up until a couple of weeks ago.
So what civil rights ALL citizens and residents of the US have are at the whims of Congress, SCOTUS decisions, and 3/4ths of the states by dint of changing the constitution.
Some states citizens and residents have more civil rights than citizens and residents of other states as anything not specifically enumerated by Congress, SCOTUS decisions or the constitution are at the whim of the states. California for example has it very specifically codified that their citizens have an expansive right to privacy. No other state (almost no other state?) actually has that in law or their constitution. And Alito, et al just rolled back judicial interpretations to a right to privacy specifically in the 14th which puts in jeopardy all prior decisions that the court has interpreted in the 14th for current civil rights that apply to everyone, but could soon be found to not be civil rights. It is a change from prior courts that have expanded or found new civil rights, rather than rolling back rights.
Dobbs wasn't simply saying Roe was wrongly decided and women don't have a right to have an abortion and that the states were free to regulate abortions. It specifically called out the right to privacy found in the 14th amendment by prior courts was a wrong interpretation of the 14th amendment. Thus, there is no right to privacy. Alito went on to say this doesn't mean the court will revisit or change prior decisions based on a right to privacy that he just said doesn't exist. Thomas came out swinging and said "yes we will and we should overturn all that other stuff*" (*but only the stuff I want overturned. Not actually like ALL the stuff that was founded on an interpretation of a right to privacy)
I realize I am getting in to way more than "self defense is a civil right". I think the court is going to keep expanding that and rolling back things that infringe on that. Just think the court is also going the wrong direction on many other things and is poised to start rolling back a LOT of other things we currently consider civil rights (possibly even back through the civil rights act if they want to change out the interpretation of the commerce clause).
The elephant in the room is what the 2A clearly states, and Thomas recently wrote a little essay about.
Nothing you argued is as clear as "shall not be infringed". BGOS is still strong. I don't have to worry about whether my right to bear arms is protected by the 10th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 21st Amendment.
The training requirement for MD is the same in state as it is for out of state. MD will never agree to reciprocity unless forced to by a court.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Conaso
Member
The Conservative Senators blew it when the "deal" was being discussed. The Republicans should have countered with National Reciprocity. Missed their chance... AGAIN!
Threeband
The M1 Does My Talking
The right to keep and bear arms is explicit. Nothing could be more plain.
My recollection is that the right to privacy is "an emination" from something or other. Then the right to abortion was perceived to be within the penumbra of that emination.
Or perhaps privacy is found in a penumbra, and abortion is the emination from that, but I think the first version is correct.
Anyway, however they rationalized it, Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself thought the justification was rubbish.
What one SCOTUS gives, another can take away. Constitution says SCOTUS is the Supreme Court. Their interpretation rules the day. No matter what. They can say green is blue, water is dry, ice is warm. And that goes.
Last edited:
Reciprocity is easy, if a state WANTS it. They did so with automobiles. Each state's training is differenet (and boy does it show in driving abilities of some locales!). Few states have a problem with the training in other states It is mostly the attitude of those states towatrds the 2A that erffects how they view reciprocity.
