Senator Thune Introducing Another National Reciprocity Bill

[dross]

You don't reconcile them. Driver's licenses don't, you just say one is good in all even if it is easier to get in another state. Problem then might be that non-resident permits go away but any of us in shall issue states wouldn't need non-resident.

Is it federal law that one state must recognize another's driver license? Not arguing, I really don't know.

As Rookie says, it's the 2nd Amendment, I'm a big states rights guy until it comes to the Constitution, it has to be the supreme law of the land otherwise the United part is pointless.

See my argument above.

 

[Rookie]

I'm looking at it from a simple point of view. I'm not required to give up any other constitutional right when I leave my state.

 

[dross]

I'm looking at it from a simple point of view. I'm not required to give up any other constitutional right when I leave my state.

You may travel through any other state with your weapon, but you are subject to the laws of that state when you are in that state. I've traveled legally through Illinois with a gun.

There are different laws in every state, many of which address issues in the Bill of Rights. The BOR doesn't require every state's laws to be uniform.

Should a state be allowed for instance, to regulate high capacity magazines? What if all you have is hi cap mags? Is that an infringement on the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Rookie]

You have traveled, but you have not carried legally which goes against "keep and bear". High cap mag bans is an infringement, IMO. My other rights aren't limited in any way, what makes the second open for opinions?

 

[Expat]

If you're making the argument that the 2nd Amendment allows no laws to be made in any state concerning guns, then it would be Constitutional. That position puts you in a pretty small group of people, however.

If you are that absolutist on the Constitution, then consistency would require you to acknowledge that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States originally, but was incorporated later by the 14th Amendment, I believe. Since then the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does apply to the States, but if you accept that ruling as Constitutional, you undermine your argument by conceding that the Supreme Court has the power under judicial review to interpret the Constitution. If you go that route, you're caught in the net that under the same ruling where they agree it applied to the states, they also allowed for regulation.

I don't see how you can hold your particular position and maintain any kind of consistency.

I guess I fall into the absolutist camp. If you read the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was written very differently from the others. The others said that Congress shall make no law. The 2nd does not, it simply says the right shall not be infringed. So I believe the others would need to be incorporated against the states to make them applicable to them. I would argue that the 2nd actually forbade any laws by the states or the Federal government from the get go. But that is obviously not the accepted way to read it. The SCOTUS did incorporate it against the states but then got squirrelly and stated that reasonable restrictions could apply. So those restrictions are now to be litigated over and over.

 

[dross]

I guess I fall into the absolutist camp. If you read the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was written very differently from the others. The others said that Congress shall make no law. The 2nd does not, it simply says the right shall not be infringed. So I believe the others would need to be incorporated against the states to make them applicable to them. I would argue that the 2nd actually forbade any laws by the states or the Federal government from the get go. But that is obviously not the accepted way to read it. The SCOTUS did incorporate it against the states but then got squirrelly and stated that reasonable restrictions could apply. So those restrictions are now to be litigated over and over.

It's kind of hard to have some of these discussions. I might have a tendency to agree with you on some level, but it's like the "angels on the head of a pin" discussion. We're talking about a very tiny minority view. I was discussing the proposed legislation from a broader position.

If the 2nd Amendment recognizes a right to carry a weapon of any type any place in the entire U.S., and any gun law at all is a direct infringement of rights, AND the 2nd Amendment is a special amendment that applied to the States even when the rest of the BOR didn't, well then, I guess you're right, it's Constitutional. I can't argue your conclusion if I accept your premeses. Even if I do, however, that still puts us both discussing the the world ought to be, rather than the way it is.

So, I'd think you'd be against this law, since it is unecessary. It's already a right, so we don't need to law.

 

[Rookie]

It's already a right that the states and government refuse to acknowledge so, unfortunately, we do need a law to protect that right.

 

[dross]

On another tack, you guys don't see an opportunity for the Feds to later claim that they have the power to restrict carry laws for the whole country and use this law and its support by gun rights advocates as justification?

Here's my scenario:

1. They pass this law.
2. Ten years later some guy from AZ shoots up a school in a swing state.
3. Because it's an election year and it's popular in the swing state, they pass a law that says everyone has to undergo a training program to be able to carry.
4. A few years later, they begin to restrict that training class so that there is months and months of waiting.

Every change can be justified by the federal intervention in the first place.

I practically have a national carry permit now. Every state I regularly visit, I can carry. And more are being added. We're winning this without the Feds.

 

[Dwight]

Realistically, we already have that law. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires states to recognize the judgments and proceedings of other states. If Indiana judges you to be fit to carry, then other states should extend you the same rights they do with their own citizens who hold a LTCH.

Agreed. Seems simple enough to mimic the drivers license recognition. Even more so, we have an unalienable right to bear arms. A drivers license is a simple priveledge.

If Indiana deems me worthy of a drivers license, then I can drive my car anywhere in the country as long as I respect the individual state laws.....

 

[dross]

Realistically, we already have that law. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires states to recognize the judgments and proceedings of other states. If Indiana judges you to be fit to carry, then other states should extend you the same rights they do with their own citizens who hold a LTCH.

The gay marriage proponents will be happy to have gun owners support of this interpretation of full faith and credit.

Last time this came up, a couple of the lawyers on the site explained it very well. It's more nuanced than we're led to believe.

 

[dross]

Agreed. Seems simple enough to mimic the drivers license recognition. Even more so, we have an unalienable right to bear arms. A drivers license is a simple priveledge.

If Indiana deems me worthy of a drivers license, then I can drive my car anywhere in the country as long as I respect the individual state laws.....

I may be wrong, but I think it was explained to me that they don't have to recognize the license from another state, they just do. Kind of like the current situation with carry laws.

 

[mrjarrell]

Thune just wants to use the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Makes some sense to go that route, since this would only apply to states that have a license or other permit, (as his last bill did). Drivers licenses go under that clause, as do marriage licenses and other documents of permission. As for the 2nd being all you need, it would be if you accepted incorporation, (as Gura and SAF are asserting in their cases).

 

[j706]

It would be nice to see this pass at some point. I think eventually it will.

 

[eric001]

Awesome, BUT as far as I can tell it doesn't have a number yet since it isn't introduced or just was. This term, S. 845 is the "Tax Return Due Date Simplification and Modernization Act of 2011." May be a good thing but not what we are talking about now.


You don't reconcile them. Driver's licenses don't, you just say one is good in all even if it is easier to get in another state. Problem then might be that non-resident permits go away but any of us in shall issue states wouldn't need non-resident.

We win on most state levels with CCW but you are never going to get CA, MA, NJ, ect. to recognize other permits without something federal (be it legistlative or judicial). All the bill should say and has in the past that if a LTCH/permit is issued in one state it is good in all PERIOD. I wouldn't support any other monkeying around. Thune doesn't. Now yes we would have to fight nasty amendments, but as written it is simple.

As Rookie says, it's the 2nd Amendment, I'm a big states rights guy until it comes to the Constitution, it has to be the supreme law of the land otherwise the United part is pointless.

Original Thune amendment text:
‘‘§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
‘‘Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:
‘‘(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or
permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

‘‘(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal
law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.’

The only thing I see about that original proposal is that it seems to be exclusive to CONCEALED carry, making no mention of OC at all. If you're going to go halfway, might as well go all the way and deal with both at the same time.

 

[LPMan59]

The only thing I see about that original proposal is that it seems to be exclusive to CONCEALED carry, making no mention of OC at all. If you're going to go halfway, might as well go all the way and deal with both at the same time.

agreed. but it's easier to take little steps than sweeping changes. we have to prove to libs that there won't be blood in the streets.

there never is, but they never stop believing their myth.

 

[hondatech2k2]

Senator Thune Introducing Another National Reciprocity Bill


Senator Lugar voted against this the first time Senator Thune introduced it.

Then he proves ONCE AGAIN....that it is time for him to go. Adios, Auf Wiedersehen, Sayonara!!