Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Interstate reciprocity by means of FEDERAL law?
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=13198
Page 1 of 1

Author:  kimberman [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Interstate reciprocity by means of FEDERAL law?

One month after successfully tucking an amendment into the credit card reform bill that expanded gun rights, a small number of Senate Republicans are looking at the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as another chance to score a victory for the Second Amendment. The possible plan -- to add an amendment that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons from one state to another in accordance with concealed carry laws. The possible rationale -- to defend gay rights.

http://washingtonindependent.com/46097/ ... rimes-bill

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-bar ... 13912.html

Author:  bensdad [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't see any difference between this and... that.

http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12130

I don't want the federal government telling the states what to do. It may feel like positive movement in this instance, but its an increase in fed. power and control. Me still no likey.

Author:  ScottM [ Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think I agree with bensdad right now but only until the 2nd is incorporated under the 14th. On the other hand I can drive in 49 other states with my WI DL and my wife and I are married in 50 states so there is an argument for reciprocity encouraged by the feds.

Author:  SultanOfBrunei [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:20 am ]
Post subject: 

bensdad wrote:
<...>
I don't want the federal government telling the states what to do. It may feel like positive movement in this instance, but its an increase in fed. power and control. Me still no likey.

+2

Author:  kecker [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:03 am ]
Post subject: 

It's times like this I hate having to maintain intellectual integrity.

Agreed, this is not a federal issue

Author:  joelr [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

I dunno. I don't think this is a Federal issue any less -- and maybe a little more, at least -- than a drivers license is. (A DL is a matter of great convenience; I don't think there's any inherent right.)

Author:  bensdad [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

read Article 4 of the Const. We don't need anything more. Any law forcing states to recognize carry permits from other states assumes that Article 4 is dead and buried. How sad is that?

Author:  Carbide Insert [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

About as sad as this in itself being insufficient:

US Constitution wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Author:  mrokern [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

bensdad wrote:
read Article 4 of the Const. We don't need anything more. Any law forcing states to recognize carry permits from other states assumes that Article 4 is dead and buried. How sad is that?


When it comes to carry permits, it is dead and buried. :evil:

Article 4 is tricky. Read Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident for a legal interpretation.

Until SCOTUS rules that 2A is a universal carry permit, you aren't going to get anywhere with the Article 4 argument.

-Mark

Author:  bensdad [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

mrokern wrote:
bensdad wrote:
read Article 4 of the Const. We don't need anything more. Any law forcing states to recognize carry permits from other states assumes that Article 4 is dead and buried. How sad is that?


When it comes to carry permits, it is dead and buried. :evil:

Article 4 is tricky. Read Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident for a legal interpretation.

Until SCOTUS rules that 2A is a universal carry permit, you aren't going to get anywhere with the Article 4 argument.

-Mark


I know. It wasn't my intention to get anywhere with Art. 4. I only intended to point out the travesty that our federal gov. has become.

Author:  mrokern [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

bensdad wrote:
mrokern wrote:
bensdad wrote:
read Article 4 of the Const. We don't need anything more. Any law forcing states to recognize carry permits from other states assumes that Article 4 is dead and buried. How sad is that?


When it comes to carry permits, it is dead and buried. :evil:

Article 4 is tricky. Read Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident for a legal interpretation.

Until SCOTUS rules that 2A is a universal carry permit, you aren't going to get anywhere with the Article 4 argument.

-Mark


I know. It wasn't my intention to get anywhere with Art. 4. I only intended to point out the travesty that our federal gov. has become.


My brother, that's a big +1 from me.

-Mark

Author:  MostlyHarmless [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

With regard to the appropriateness of federal laws regulating firearms, it is my view that the train left the station about 19 years ago.

A better argument against federally mandated reciprocity is that it may make it more difficult to pass pro-carry legislation at the state level. For example, Georgia has been shall-issue for years, but the vague and burdensome restriction that permit holders may not carry in a "public place" make it impractical to carry for many people. There have been some small legislative victories, but more needs to be done. A mandate to recognize permits from other states would not help the cause there.

A federal requirement to recognize out-of-state permits would be a more serious setback in states like Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin where slow, careful work is being done to pass modern legislation. (I believe the proposed provision requiring states that don't issue permits at all to recognize out of state permits under expansive federal rules is unlikely to appear in any final legislation.)

So it's tradeoffs. I agree reciprocity is, overall, a mess. I agree that it probably won't get fixed at the state level. And I understand that for some people, the reciprocity problems are serious enough to amount to a right denied, because of their travel patterns.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/