[chinch]

sadly wont ever happen but we can dream

 

[bearone2]

no

 

[GCBHM]

No. The problem with this is that once you nationalize your rights you open the door to a national revocation of that right. The federal government does not have constitutional authority to enact national reciprocity, and unless an amendment is passed requiring states to recognize state issued pistol licenses it will be revoked as soon as a liberal gets in office, and they will take a shot at a national licensing requirement further restricting access. We do not want to place any authority in the hands of the federal government that it was never intended to have. It will not end well for the people.

 

[InOverMyHead]

No. The problem with this is that once you nationalize your rights you open the door to a national revocation of that right. The federal government does not have constitutional authority to enact national reciprocity, and unless an amendment is passed requiring states to recognize state issued pistol licenses it will be revoked as soon as a liberal gets in office, and they will take a shot at a national licensing requirement further restricting access. We do not want to place any authority in the hands of the federal government that it was never intended to have. It will not end well for the people.

is it not possible to authorize federal law to allow for reciprocity without authorizing it to establish licensing requirements?

How is free speech not "nationalized"?

 

[GCBHM]

is it not possible to authorize federal law to allow for reciprocity without authorizing it to establish licensing requirements?

The short answer is no. I mean we, the People, implemented a constitution enumerating limed and very specific powers to a federal government with very specific instructions that it has no power or authority outside those powers enumerated to it, and it, the federal government, has been grabbing more and more power since the day the Constitution was ratified. If you have to tell the government why you need something before it lets you have it you are not free. Just food for thought.

How is free speech not "nationalized"?

No right is nationalized. Only individuals have rights, not nations, and the danger with nationalizing rights, or even affording rights to groups, is that it totally circumvents the smallest minority in the world, which is the individual. Once you have violated one person's right you have opened the door for all rights to be regulated, and subsequently, stripped.

The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to freedom of expression. These rights are deemed as "unalienable natural rights," and they were endowed by the Creator, before the constitution was ever thought of, which means these rights cannot be alienated from its possessor by any means. The only thing the FA does, along with the entire federal Bill of Rights, is restrict the "federal" government from infringing the rights the people had prior to its inception.

What the FA does not do is guarantee anyone they can do whatever they want without consequences. The same holds true for the Second Amendment. It is not a permit. It is a restriction placed on the "federal" government (not the State governments) so that it cannot disarm the people. Giving the federal government the power to regulate gun ownership is a direct conflict of interest which will lead to even greater power grabs in time. The only power the federal government has WRT guns is the authority to mandate the militia be armed and adequately supplied with ammunition, but it cannot in any way disarm the people.

The problem with allowing it, the federal government, to have the power to enact national reciprocity is that it will eventually strip that "right" from the people and very likely attempt to mandate a new act, via executive order, requiring national registry. What will be to stop them? Once we cede that power to it, the government will have it to push for gun confiscation.

 

[canes7]

OK.. I've been thinking about this a bit since the idea started gaining ground. I see two arguments:

First is the issue of states rights. Shouldn't the state have a say in what goes on inside their own borders? Many of the same people screaming for national carry are the same people that scream for smaller, localized government.

Second thought. The Constitution is meant for all states, not just a few and not just those who pick and choose the parts they want. So if the 2A covers conceal carry there should be no need for laws to provide this right.

 

[Mike55]

I like the idea, but I'd prefer to keep the fed govnt out of my business as much as possible. I trust my state pols more than I do the ones from, oh shall we say, California, to name just one.

 

[GCBHM]

OK.. I've been thinking about this a bit since the idea started gaining ground. I see two arguments:

First is the issue of states rights. Shouldn't the state have a say in what goes on inside their own borders? Many of the same people screaming for national carry are the same people that scream for smaller, localized government.

Yes! On this you are absolutely correct.

Second thought. The Constitution is meant for all states, not just a few and not just those who pick and choose the parts they want. So if the 2A covers conceal carry there should be no need for laws to provide this right.

Actually, no. The US Constitution is not meant for any state. Each state has its own constitution which is where we want to fight these battles. It is much easier to hold local governments in check than it is to hold a distant national government. This was one of the main points of contention by those who opposed a national constitution, which only narrowly passed at the time.

The Second Amendment was never intended to be applied to the States. Nor was the rest of the US Constitution. The States created the federal government and gave it very limited powers, but the States always maintained the right to change any part of the US Constitution per the formal amendment process. The federal government was never given the power to subject the States to the federal Bill of Rights.

 

[Curmudgeon]

The same holds true for the Second Amendment. It is not a permit. It is a restriction placed on the "federal" government (not the State governments) so that it cannot disarm the people.

Absolutely!! Did they (the government) not get the memo?!?

 

[GCBHM]

Absolutely!! Did they (the government) not get the memo?!?

Oh I think they got it...they've just been steady looking for a way to regulate it. LOL!!! Actually, that is what it uses the 14th for, but, aside from the fact that the 14th was never legally ratified, it deals only with citizenship rights. The 39th Congress never even discussed the Bill of Rights during the ratifying debate for the 14th Amendment, which, again, was not legally ratified. It had only 21 of the required 28 states to reach the 3/4 threshold, and those Southern states that moved to ratify it were coerced at gun point.

 

[InOverMyHead]

The short answer is no. I mean we, the People, implemented a constitution enumerating limed and very specific powers to a federal government with very specific instructions that it has no power or authority outside those powers enumerated to it, and it, the federal government, has been grabbing more and more power since the day the Constitution was ratified. If you have to tell the government why you need something before it lets you have it you are not free. Just food for thought.



No right is nationalized. Only individuals have rights, not nations, and the danger with nationalizing rights, or even affording rights to groups, is that it totally circumvents the smallest minority in the world, which is the individual. Once you have violated one person's right you have opened the door for all rights to be regulated, and subsequently, stripped.

The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to freedom of expression. These rights are deemed as "unalienable natural rights," and they were endowed by the Creator, before the constitution was ever thought of, which means these rights cannot be alienated from its possessor by any means. The only thing the FA does, along with the entire federal Bill of Rights, is restrict the "federal" government from infringing the rights the people had prior to its inception.

What the FA does not do is guarantee anyone they can do whatever they want without consequences. The same holds true for the Second Amendment. It is not a permit. It is a restriction placed on the "federal" government (not the State governments) so that it cannot disarm the people. Giving the federal government the power to regulate gun ownership is a direct conflict of interest which will lead to even greater power grabs in time. The only power the federal government has WRT guns is the authority to mandate the militia be armed and adequately supplied with ammunition, but it cannot in any way disarm the people.

The problem with allowing it, the federal government, to have the power to enact national reciprocity is that it will eventually strip that "right" from the people and very likely attempt to mandate a new act, via executive order, requiring national registry. What will be to stop them? Once we cede that power to it, the government will have it to push for gun confiscation.

We've not been stripped of our right of free speech and it's been via state laws that our right to bear arms has been limited.......

Territories petitioned to become states. That is, to be included as a state within the United States. In most cases the land was already owned by We the People, but statehood established boundaries and passed legal ownership to the people of said state with some federally protected land withstanding. But the important piece is that State Constitutions had to be approved by congress, in some cases changes had to be made or details worked out, thus congress established particular conditions that had to be met by the state in order for the territory to become a state. In all cases the National Constitution had to be accepted by the state.

Concerning free speech, there are national laws that limit that right as in one isn't allowed to use speech that presents a clear and present danger- tell someone that's suicidal that they'd be better off dead or incite a crowd to riot or communicate state secrets and see what happens.

These conditions apply regardless of any state you're in. California can't actually prosecute you for "denying" climate change, Hickenlooper can't prosecute you for speaking against common core and student data mining and mayors in Texas can't prosecute pastors for anti homosexual sermons as much as all of the above would like to.

If it's reasonable that concealed carry is fundamentally tied to our right to bear arms it seems reasonable that could be legislated at the national level similar to "clear and present danger". Yes? no?
Just as there isn't a list of words that are clearly dangerous there doesn't need to be legislated conditions to carry.

If you can legally own a weapon, you can legally carry it, you can even conceal it. Seems simple. I don't see how that standard threatens our right to bear arms nor our right (in some states-privilege) to carry, even concealed.

It could limit the ability of a state to govern what our right to bear arms means/applies/look like but is that necessarily a bad thing? Do we believe that Hickenlooper should be able to have you charged for speaking out against student data mining? If the right to bear arms is something all states of America had to recognize in order to become a state, should it be ok to allow NY an exception?

If later, a national reciprocity law was stricken down, does that prevent states from going back to what we have now?

 

[GCBHM]

We've not been stripped of our right of free speech and it's been via state laws that our right to bear arms has been limited.......

Territories petitioned to become states. That is, to be included as a state within the United States. In most cases the land was already owned by We the People, but statehood established boundaries and passed legal ownership to the people of said state with some federally protected land withstanding. But the important piece is that State Constitutions had to be approved by congress, in some cases changes had to be made or details worked out, thus congress established particular conditions that had to be met by the state in order for the territory to become a state. In all cases the National Constitution had to be accepted by the state.

Concerning free speech, there are national laws that limit that right as in one isn't allowed to use speech that presents a clear and present danger- tell someone that's suicidal that they'd be better off dead or incite a crowd to riot or communicate state secrets and see what happens.

These conditions apply regardless of any state you're in. California can't actually prosecute you for "denying" climate change, Hickenlooper can't prosecute you for speaking against common core and student data mining and mayors in Texas can't prosecute pastors for anti homosexual sermons as much as all of the above would like to.

If it's reasonable that concealed carry is fundamentally tied to our right to bear arms it seems reasonable that could be legislated at the national level similar to "clear and present danger". Yes? no?
Just as there isn't a list of words that are clearly dangerous there doesn't need to be legislated conditions to carry.

If you can legally own a weapon, you can legally carry it, you can even conceal it. Seems simple. I don't see how that standard threatens our right to bear arms nor our right (in some states-privilege) to carry, even concealed.

It could limit the ability of a state to govern what our right to bear arms means/applies/look like but is that necessarily a bad thing? Do we believe that Hickenlooper should be able to have you charged for speaking out against student data mining? If the right to bear arms is something all states of America had to recognize in order to become a state, should it be ok to allow NY an exception?

If later, a national reciprocity law was stricken down, does that prevent states from going back to what we have now?

There is a difference btwn freedom of expression vs the limitations put on it. The First Amendment does not restrict or limit the people in any way, it only restricts the federal government from making laws that infringe or violate the right to freedom of expression. Laws against violating the rights of others, such as hate speech or inciting a riot, are separate issues, to be dealt with at the state level.

WRT what a state can do once the federal government has been given illegitimate power to strip the right to keep and bear arms, there is no guarantee. That is why it is best not to vest that power in the hands of the government in the first place. There is a reason it was not given the power to regulate the private ownership of guns, and that is b/c it would most definitely abuse the power to control the people. We do not want that in any wise.

 

[Jeeper808]

I think the only way this is even possible would be for all the states to sit down and come up with one standard of training. If all states had the same training criteria then they could easily have an reciprocity agreement. This would still allow each state to keep their carry laws as they are. I myself have no problem with stricter training requirements. If one wants to be responsible for carrying a firearm would it hurt to have to do 12hours classroom and so many hrs of range time, with a minimum shooting score.

Most reciprocity agreements are based on states that have either stricter or the same requirements. The problem is that most states would be against a national carry reciprocity.

 

[InOverMyHead]

There is a difference btwn freedom of expression vs the limitations put on it. The First Amendment does not restrict or limit the people in any way, it only restricts the federal government from making laws that infringe or violate the right to freedom of expression. Laws against violating the rights of others, such as hate speech or inciting a riot, are separate issues, to be dealt with at the state level.

WRT what a state can do once the federal government has been given illegitimate power to strip the right to keep and bear arms, there is no guarantee. That is why it is best not to vest that power in the hands of the government in the first place. There is a reason it was not given the power to regulate the private ownership of guns, and that is b/c it would most definitely abuse the power to control the people. We do not want that in any wise.

What are the safeguards preventing the state from abusing power to control people? How does a law the further prevents states from limiting one's rights and abuse of vested power as in overturning "crying fire in a theater" and defining it as "clear a present danger"?

I get the idea of giving the federal gov't too much power but I'm not seeing how such a linear argument supports allowing the federal gov't to prosecute for treason or limit prosecution of climate denial (both free speech) but can't establish that right to carry falls under a right to bear arms as that is giving it too much power while free speech parameters isn't a similar threat?

 

[InOverMyHead]

I think the only way this is even possible would be for all the states to sit down and come up with one standard of training. If all states had the same training criteria then they could easily have an reciprocity agreement. This would still alway each state to keep their carry laws as they are. I myself have no problem with stricter training requirements. If one wants to be responsible for carrying a firearm would it hurt to have to do 12hours classroom and so many hrs of range time, with a minimum shooting score.

Most reciprocity agreements are based on states that have either stricter or the same requirements. The problem is that most states would be against a national carry reciprocity.

But I do.

which doesn't take away from your point. It seems it would require everyone to agree, the problem as I see it is that it would turn into a politicking for compromise which bears with it the reality of weakening our protections- see California. I keep coming back to the question of whether it's a violation of our rights and sovereignty to establish national reciprocity whether a state agrees with it or not (keeping in mind that states gave up some sovereignty to become a state)? Do we believe the legislation found in Illinois, California, New Jersey, etc. are just and keeping with the Constitution? <--which is a separate question from whether they've been sufficiently challenged or an activist judged ruled to uphold the legislation.

I'm not sure, I find this a question interesting on a fundamental level.

 

[agumon12]

I'm totally 100% for National reciprocity. I also want to see NFA and Huges Amendment repealed.

My surprise is why Sigtalk isn't more active in discussing this topic. This is the one, rare, time we can actually push to get this done. Regardless if you like Trump or not.

We can't let this rare opportunity to pass.

 

[Mills]

Only for us Dreamers.
It would be so nice when traveling .

 

[Jeeper808]

I think the only way this is even possible would be for all the states to sit down and come up with one standard of training. If all states had the same training criteria then they could easily have an reciprocity agreement. This would still allow each state to keep their carry laws as they are. I myself have no problem with stricter training requirements. If one wants to be responsible for carrying a firearm would it hurt to have to do 12hours classroom and so many hrs of range time, with a minimum shooting score.

Most reciprocity agreements are based on states that have either stricter or the same requirements. The problem is that most states would be against a national carry reciprocity.

But I do.

which doesn't take away from your point. It seems it would require everyone to agree, the problem as I see it is that it would turn into a politicking for compromise which bears with it the reality of weakening our protections- see California. I keep coming back to the question of whether it's a violation of our rights and sovereignty to establish national reciprocity whether a state agrees with it or not (keeping in mind that states gave up some sovereignty to become a state)? Do we believe the legislation found in Illinois, California, New Jersey, etc. are just and keeping with the Constitution? <--which is a separate question from whether they've been sufficiently challenged or an activist judged ruled to uphold the legislation.

Double training for you JK!

My Ohio licence allows me to carry pretty much anywhere I may need to. The states that don't honor my permit are those I would avoid anyway.

 

[Reagan 39]

Very interesting, the "nay" sayer's arguments and the possibility of Federal Gov opening a door to restrictions and or registrations. This, I believe, is something we face with "activist" courts, including "activist" judges on SCOTUS.
It would be reassuring to have our "rights" bolstered, further protected, but I understand the distrust of government.
To the point made of no federal intrusion, how is not the "Federal firearm transportation act", 18 U S C 926A, 27 CFR 178.38, this "door" already been opened?
Every time national reciprocity comes up I am torn between arguments for and against.