National repicrocity in Congress (GOA alert)

[ChamberedRound]

A few things:

I know this is something many of you either already knew or figured out, I'm just putting my own thought process out there for those that may have been unsure, as I was when first seeing this bill, if it was written in accordance with the Constitution.

After reading through the bill, and thinking more about Full Faith and Credit, it seems that this bill is not attempting to end-around state's rights, but rather require states via Article IV, Section 1 to recognize the other state's permits. The bill is additionally consistent with the aforementioned article in that Congress is permitted to pass laws that prescribe the method in which Full Faith and Credit is implemented.

In any event, I send letters to our US Senators asking them to support the amendment.

As for the "consistency issues" surrounding an AWB being passed using the same rationale: if it happens, let it come. While reciprocity requires a right to be honored, an AWB under Full Faith and Credit would require a ban to be honored everywhere, which is contradictory to the spirit of of the article. A ban in one state cannot be expected to be the law of the land, just like the acceptance of a right in one state cannot be accepted everywhere. In other words, states that recognize the right to carry would be expected to recognize the same right of citizens from other states, regardless of the disparities in the regulations from state to state.

If a reciprocity bill like this were passed, a state's only option to prevent non-residents from carrying would be to prevent residents from carrying as well. Seeing as many states (like NJ, DE, etc.) claim to recognize the right, but heavily regulate it to get their way and avoid Constitutional issues, a bill like this would not be welcomed by those states. It would require them to "loosen the chains" for their own residents, otherwise non-residents will have more freedom to exercise their rights than the residents do, which for some oppressive states will likely be an option.

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

That's good thinking but it really begs the question: what is the source or grant of power which allows for LEOSA?

Taking a quick look at the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act

as well as the text of the bill itself:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h108-218

the LEOSA is a federalization of concealed carry for Law Enforcement Officers. In other words, this law preempts any state's laws preventing LEOs from carrying. There is no mention of "full faith and credit" or "honoring"; it is a blatant redistribution of authority from the states to the federal government. If it were being done under 2nd Amendment grounds, I'd say the federal govt. has a right to stake a claim. But they won't do that on 2nd Amendment grounds, as then it would apply to all citizens.

[phillyshooter]

I received a standard form letter back from 1 of the 2 state Senators regarding this matter.

Dear Mr. Bailey:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding gun control. I appreciate you writing to express your interest and opinions on this important matter.

Millions of Americans own firearms for a variety of reasons: many wish to protect themselves and their property while others collect firearms as a hobby or use firearms for sport. Most gun owners are responsible citizens and understand the burden of owning a firearm. While a tiny fraction of the guns in this country are used in the unfortunate instance of the commission of a crime, the government should not prevent gun ownership which would punish law-abiding citizens. I believe the Second Amendment clearly defines the right of citizens to own guns and in my tenure in the Senate, I have a strong record supporting the right of law abiding citizens to own guns.

I opposed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, more commonly known as the 'Brady Bill.' I believed this legislation to be onerous in its restrictions on individuals' right to purchase firearms and I believe it did not sufficiently address the relevant issues necessary to combat crime.

In the 109th Congress (2005-2006), I voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This act limits the civil liability of gun manufacturers and reduces frivolous lawsuits. During the Senate's consideration of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY 2007, I supported and the Senate adopted an amendment which would prohibit any funding provided by this legislation to be used for the purpose of confiscating firearms during a natural disaster or another state of emergency.

Thank you again for contacting me regarding the right to own firearms. I will keep your thoughts in mind if the Senate considers any legislation relating to guns or gun control in the 110th Congress. Please be assured, I will continue to support the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and own firearms. If you have any further questions about this issue or any other issue, please contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov.

Sincerely,




Arlen Specter

[soberbyker]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

A few things:

I know this is something many of you either already knew or figured out, I'm just putting my own thought process out there for those that may have been unsure, as I was when first seeing this bill, if it was written in accordance with the Constitution.

After reading through the bill, and thinking more about Full Faith and Credit, it seems that this bill is not attempting to end-around state's rights, but rather require states via Article IV, Section 1 to recognize the other state's permits. The bill is additionally consistent with the aforementioned article in that Congress is permitted to pass laws that prescribe the method in which Full Faith and Credit is implemented.

In any event, I send letters to our US Senators asking them to support the amendment.

As for the "consistency issues" surrounding an AWB being passed using the same rationale: if it happens, let it come. While reciprocity requires a right to be honored, an AWB under Full Faith and Credit would require a ban to be honored everywhere, which is contradictory to the spirit of of the article. A ban in one state cannot be expected to be the law of the land, just like the acceptance of a right in one state cannot be accepted everywhere. In other words, states that recognize the right to carry would be expected to recognize the same right of citizens from other states, regardless of the disparities in the regulations from state to state.

If a reciprocity bill like this were passed, a state's only option to prevent non-residents from carrying would be to prevent residents from carrying as well. Seeing as many states (like NJ, DE, etc.) claim to recognize the right, but heavily regulate it to get their way and avoid Constitutional issues, a bill like this would not be welcomed by those states. It would require them to "loosen the chains" for their own residents, otherwise non-residents will have more freedom to exercise their rights than the residents do, which for some oppressive states will likely be an option.



Taking a quick look at the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act

as well as the text of the bill itself:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h108-218

the LEOSA is a federalization of concealed carry for Law Enforcement Officers. In other words, this law preempts any state's laws preventing LEOs from carrying. There is no mention of "full faith and credit" or "honoring"; it is a blatant redistribution of authority from the states to the federal government. If it were being done under 2nd Amendment grounds, I'd say the federal govt. has a right to stake a claim. But they won't do that on 2nd Amendment grounds, as then it would apply to all citizens.

This is already the case in Delaware, I carry in DE once a week on my not to hard to get Utah CWP. I've read the rules for getting one if you're a Delaware resident, all I can say is Wow, that's a bitch.

Bill

[tl_3237]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

That's good thinking but it really begs the question: what is the source or grant of power which allows for LEOSA?

Off the top of my head I could not answer that.

After reading the background on the LEOSA act it would appear that the feds invoked the authority through that umbrella phrase that they use (misuse) so much - "interstate commerce". Interesting it seems that there is a very small possibility that a LEO wouldn't be able to invoke the act - if his/her gun never left the state of manufacture. For example a NH LEO who bought his gun directly from Ruger would not qualify under the interstate commerce clause of the LEOSA below to carry that particular gun interstate. However, he could carry a different gun that was shipped at some point in its life in interstate commerce.

"Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b). "

I don't subscribe to the overly broad application of the interstate commerce as the feds foot-in-the door but since its so well entrenched in our federal laws I'm not proud and will accept it as a valid reason to pass national reciprocity.

[knighthawk06699]

I Got this from Sen. Casey....


************************************

Thank you for your email. Your message has been received by my office and will be carefully reviewed by a member of my staff.

Sincerely,
Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.

[pex]

Originally Posted by tl_3237

I don't subscribe to the overly broad application of the interstate commerce as the feds foot-in-the door but since its so well entrenched in our federal laws I'm not proud and will accept it as a valid reason to pass national reciprocity.

That would be an underhanded trick by government pretending to give us back our rights while further entrenching their probes into our lives. Interstate commerce needs to be pushed back rather than accepted more.

The is a particular place where it would be very unacceptable to misuse a part of the Constitution to 'bring back out Constitutional right as protected in the Second Amendment'.

[tl_3237]

Originally Posted by pex

That would be an underhanded trick by government pretending to give us back our rights while further entrenching their probes into our lives. Interstate commerce needs to be pushed back rather than accepted more.

The is a particular place where it would be very unacceptable to misuse a part of the Constitution to 'bring back out Constitutional right as protected in the Second Amendment'.

In a freedom utopia I would agree however, failing to live there, if I was offered the choice of national reciprocity via interstate commerce cites or no national reciprocity, I'll take the former because of the practicality/reality of the situation.

Anyone else want to opine as to their druthers?