-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Constitutional cary
- Thread starter lutstribe
- Start date
Abe Froman
NES Member
If this is anything like Hands Across America in the '80s, it was an utter failure.
GL2020
NES Member
If you’re referring to the national reciprocity video it’s been discussed at least one other thread, maybe more.
Opinions vary from “won’t happen” or “blue states will ignore it” to “awesome if true”.
I’m in the second camp. Blue states will ignore it just like they do many other things like Bruen and immigration laws.
...huh?
I think you're talking about national reciprocity. Your thread title mentions "constitutional carry," which would require a specific amendment about carry. Or, I guess, a very specific SCOTUS ruling, far more directive than Bruen.
SCOTUS doesn't like making those kinds of rulings. They are not legislators.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you know what Executive Orders are for, nor what their scope is. They are not a substitute for legislation, and even less of a substitute for a SCOTUS ruling. They are administrative rules that bind the Executive Branch only.
GL2020
NES Member
Not trying to be contrarian, just asking....how would it be a disaster?
I mean I can certainly see challenges from blue states claiming everything from violation of states rights to predicting Armageddon, but we kind of know that.
I can even see some states outright ignoring it....and probably (sadly) breaking some people financially in the process with arrests and court cases (and no, I don't want to be a test case lol).
I could also see some states saying "ok, we'll accept some out of state license, but you can't bring <whatever gun> into our state" like MA seems so fond of.
Personally I go to IL (land at OHare, and GTFO of town) frequently and it's next to impossible to apply for a non-resident permit unless you're from a certain limited set of states. I don't even necessarily want to carry there cause I don't usually walk around much (airport -> car -> hotel -> car -> work at a secure facility -> car -> airport), but to keep a firearm in the car and hotel room...since if I'm not working in DC, that's where I'll be.
But what am I missing in terms of possible fallout? Honestly curious to hear cause I'm obviously missing something
Federal templated carry is bad. Anti states will use it to bracket restrictions against only that class and make them useless. Worse yet Federal natrep will give lots of shitty judges a cop out. (Eg, via mootness. Oh yay you can legally carry in NYC... a city which will probably have 300 no carry zones for federally templated licenses. Great win.
)ETA: or at least, lets let the lawfare finish pumping.....
Last edited:
Well if it is anything like what was working it's way through congress in 2018, but ultimately buried, it would require all states to honor permit from "a state", and language is key because it didn't specify home state. So a non-res permit issued by NH to a MA resident that does not have a MA LTC, would still have to be honored, even by MA. And this was confirmed as intended by one of the authors of the bill.Federal templated carry is bad. Anti states will use it to bracket restrictions against only that class and make them useless. Worse yet Federal natrep will give lots of shitty judges a cop out. (Eg, via mootness. Oh yay you can legally carry in NYC... a city which will probably have 300 no carry zones for federally templated licenses. Great win.
ETA: or at least, lets let the lawfare finish pumping.....
But what it didn't do was allow the states to set lower standards than the Fed, but that's the case now, and always will be.
It also allowed that a states restrictions, as applied to in state permits, would also apply to non-residents. But this is actually an advantage because the pool of potential litigants would increase dramatically with both residents and non-residents.
Fed reciprocity would have no affect of what restrictions they applied, they do this now, they will do it then, and it require thay any restriction be the same. So again, as opposed to being a problem, it's a benefit with the much greater number of potential challengers. And these challengers would not need to worry about retaliation.
Again, this is how it was written in 2018. this addressed @drgrant concerns, so how exactly would it be a negative.
I still dont see.it as anything other than a faggot NRA shit show. If natrep exists (and it's done poorly, which is virtually a guarantee) it will tank any cases where someone is obstructed and potentially block broader relief - a court will crap out if you give them an exit.
I hated this f***ing idea when it started. I still hate it now. I don't want feds f***ing with carry laws. Or getting in the middle of licensing. Period end, full stop.
f*** that noise.
Maybe you should read what was put forth in 2017 for the 2018 session. You say you hate it but list nothing spcific, just blanket hate.
AN ACT
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017”.
TITLE I—Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017
SEC. 101. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.
(a) In general.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—
“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or
“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
“(c) (1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.
“(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).
“(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.
“(d) (1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.
“(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
“(e) In subsection (a):
“(1) The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.
“(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.
“(f) (1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun.
“(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:
“(A) A unit of the National Park System.
“(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
“(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
“(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
“(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
“(F) Land administered and managed by the Forest Service.”.
(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
“926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.
(c) Severability.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 102. Rule of construction.
Nothing in this title prohibits a law enforcement officer with reasonable suspicion of a violation of any law from conducting a brief investigative stop in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 103. Certain off-duty law enforcement officers and retired law enforcement officers allowed to carry a concealed firearm, and discharge a firearm, in a school zone.
Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in paragraph (2)(B)—
(A) by striking “or” at the end of clause (vi); and
(B) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix) and inserting after clause (vi) the following:
“(vii) by an off-duty law enforcement officer who is a qualified law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926B) and is authorized under such section to carry a concealed firearm, if the firearm is concealed;
“(viii) by a qualified retired law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926C) who is authorized under such section to carry a concealed firearm, if the firearm is concealed; or”; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(B)—
(A) by striking “or” at the end of clause (iii);
(B) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
“(v) by an off-duty law enforcement officer who is a qualified law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926B) and is authorized under such section to carry a concealed firearm; or
“(vi) by a qualified retired law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926C) who is authorized under such section to carry a concealed firearm.”.
SEC. 104. Interstate carrying of firearms by Federal judges.
(a) In general.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, is amended by inserting after section 926D the following:
Ҥ 926E. Interstate carrying of firearms by Federal judges
“Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a Federal judge may carry a concealed firearm in any State if such judge is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.”.
(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for such chapter, as amended by section 101(b) of this Act, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926D the following:
“926E. Interstate carrying of firearms by Federal judges.”.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text
I left out the fix NICS bill that was merged into this. it wasn't all that bad, but it's a separate issue and has nothing to do with carrying.
Ah, yes, the famous bruin decision!
Executive orders are not binding on the states, so no, he cannot.
I suggest that you read H.R. 38. It has none of thatFederal templated carry is bad. Anti states will use it to bracket restrictions against only that class and make them useless. Worse yet Federal natrep will give lots of shitty judges a cop out. (Eg, via mootness. Oh yay you can legally carry in NYC... a city which will probably have 300 no carry zones for federally templated licenses. Great win.
ETA: or at least, lets let the lawfare finish pumping.....
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/38?s=3&r=45
traveling gun owners getting arrested for conduct that is legal in their home states is a huge problem that needs to be take care of.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 41,218
- Likes
- 36,781
What about Upwit Peepoe?
Circa. . . . 1985 or so. Week of July 4, the Pops used to put on concerts on the Hatch Shell every night for 4-5 nights before the big event. Lightly attended. Usually the backup conductor and not a full orchestra. And guests LIKE. . . . I got to see - Up With People! Would not recommend. ROFL!!!
pinefd
NES Member
Don't know, but I was thinking that that would probably be part of any future proposal...computerized and tied to the DMV database so that it would be an easy look-up for the po-po nation-wide. It would make driving through NJ that much more fun and challenging!
Frank
No it wasn’t. I posted the bill, as it was passed by the House, above.
It even has provisions for legal fees and damages, if you are wrongly arrested/charged.
Read it
It’s was a positive step, with no downside. But the pantshitters can’t support it because someday something, not even hinted at, might get proposed. Meanwhile the 2a haters will support every little bill, not giving a dam about what might happen later. This is why we are losing, you won’t take a little win.Don't know, but I was thinking that that would probably be part of any future proposal...computerized and tied to the DMV database so that it would be an easy look-up for the po-po nation-wide. It would make driving through NJ that much more fun and challenging!
Frank
Mark from ?
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 13,816
- Likes
- 14,915
No one in free states really care about it, they don't want the feds making gun laws that might affect them.
Meaning, if the feds create some sort of federal carry permit type of situation..... it could go sideways to their free staters being able to carry without any permit now. States might get the stupid idea that you needing a federal permit to carry might be a good thing. Or some type of national registration ploy going along with it. More big government.
MA and other communist states will go out of their way to nullify any federal permit and add theirs on top of it, and it will get tied up in court forever......and you won't be able to carry there anyway...at least until a case is brought forward.
Meaning, if the feds create some sort of federal carry permit type of situation..... it could go sideways to their free staters being able to carry without any permit now. States might get the stupid idea that you needing a federal permit to carry might be a good thing. Or some type of national registration ploy going along with it. More big government.
MA and other communist states will go out of their way to nullify any federal permit and add theirs on top of it, and it will get tied up in court forever......and you won't be able to carry there anyway...at least until a case is brought forward.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
We already have it. Just needs to be followed and enforced. The only one that is treated like a red headed step child.
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.
Constitution of the United States
Second Amendment
Second Amendment ExplainedA 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.
We shall see what?
The Republicans will hold a 4 seat margin in the House and a 3 seat margin in the Senate. They don’t have enough of a margin to pass any controversial legislation. No controversial legislation will pass in the upcoming session.
The president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterm elections, so in the final 2 years of Trumps term most likely the Democrats will regain control of one or both of the houses.
So, nationwide constitutional carry isn’t going to pass Congress during Trumps term.
Everyone realizes that national reciprocity and national constitutional carry are different things, right? National reciprocity is simply forcing the states to recognize each other's carry permits. National constitutional carry will not come about by federal legislation. The only way will be a SCOTUS decision that finds licensing is unconstitutional.
Also we need to take small wins where we can get them. Opposing national reciprocity because "the 2A is my carry permit" isn't beneficial. Look at the anti-gunners, they didn't just wake up one day and ban machine guns, ARs, and implement magazine restrictions in one swoop. These infringements were passed slowly over time. Fully getting our rights back will most likely take the same strategy.
Of course national reciprocity isn't perfect. If you visit NYC, or any other anti-gun area, there will be a ton of "gun free zones". But wouldn't it be nice to drive from New England to anywhere else in the country without fear of being arrested for having your carry gun on you while travelling through NY?
Also we need to take small wins where we can get them. Opposing national reciprocity because "the 2A is my carry permit" isn't beneficial. Look at the anti-gunners, they didn't just wake up one day and ban machine guns, ARs, and implement magazine restrictions in one swoop. These infringements were passed slowly over time. Fully getting our rights back will most likely take the same strategy.
Of course national reciprocity isn't perfect. If you visit NYC, or any other anti-gun area, there will be a ton of "gun free zones". But wouldn't it be nice to drive from New England to anywhere else in the country without fear of being arrested for having your carry gun on you while travelling through NY?
pastera
NES Member
There are several issues with the bill
- Concealed carry only - don't let your shirt ride up.
- Must have both a government ID (drivers license, passport, etc.) and a physical concealed carry permit on your person
- While it says a person may not be arrested, it allows for a very wide probably cause exception
- Includes magazines and ammo in the definition of handgun
- Documents need only be "facially valid" therefore you cannot be held while they verify your unexpired permit
- Burden shifts to the government upon asserting reciprocity (as long as you had the required IDs)
- Attorney's fees shall be awarded upon successful defense
- Seems to pierce QI for damages
HARRYM
NES Member
There will be many votes on many topics and issues that will force many Democrats in states to pick a side. The decisions will be used against them in some states that are battle ground states. I am hoping this mitigates the losses the Presidents Party suffers in off year elections. Inch by inch it will be for us going forward.
Similar threads
