Concealed carry reciprocity: Prospects dim for top gun priority in 2018

[R L Suehr]

How does that compare to Heller which states in part...

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...m-states-solve

It came after Heller and specifically held that the individual right recognized under Heller was Incorporated by the fourteenth. It is the reason why illonois had to start a CCW program and why DC is scared to challenge it's CCW argument in the SCOTUS. It stopped short on the "restrictions" issue and left that for further interpretation. It built on Heller though and would be a primary case cited in arguments for a challenge to national reciprocity. The SCOTUS hasn't ruled on any major 2A cases since, but between Heller and McDonald they would have to back peddle to rule carry isn't covered by the 2A or Incorporated under 14 A. It did overturn parts of some 19th century rulings.

This is why the Dems are in such a tizzy. If the bill passes, they know there's a good chance it will be held constitutional by SCOTUS.

[JenniferG]

National reciprocity is already covered in the US Constitution but it's being conveniently ignored/

The 14th Amendment specifically states in section 1

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[knight0334]

How does that compare to Heller which states in part...

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...m-states-solve

Even with SCOTUS agreeing that "concealed carry" could be regulated/prohibited, many states still infringe upon open carry.

The 2A says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." One way or another, some form of carry must be allowed to pass 2A muster. The states that fully regulate concealed carry often regulate open carry just the same, especially the anti-gun states. Since the 2A requires the states honor some form of bearing arms, and SCOTUS agrees that concealed can be regulated/prohibited, the states then must allow open carry - even by non-residents(see 14A).

[Williamsmith]

Even with SCOTUS agreeing that "concealed carry" could be regulated/prohibited, many states still infringe upon open carry.

The 2A says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." One way or another, some form of carry must be allowed to pass 2A muster. The states that fully regulate concealed carry often regulate open carry just the same, especially the anti-gun states. Since the 2A requires the states honor some form of bearing arms, and SCOTUS agrees that concealed can be regulated/prohibited, the states then must allow open carry - even by non-residents(see 14A).

I agree. Open carry is literally a 2nd amendment right. But the pushback by progressive/liberal anti gun jurisdictions is the rub. Average Joe can’t afford to test the waters wrapped in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t print money for him to defend himself with.

[R L Suehr]

I agree. Open carry is literally a 2nd amendment right. But the pushback by progressive/liberal anti gun jurisdictions is the rub. Average Joe can’t afford to test the waters wrapped in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t print money for him to defend himself with.

Which national reciprocity bill addresses:

“(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.

If this passes and States like prnj want to force the issue, it'll mean big payout days for those who get harrassed.

[Williamsmith]

Which national reciprocity bill addresses:



If this passes and States like prnj want to force the issue, it'll mean big payout days for those who get harrassed.

If I were homeless and didn’t have anything to lose, it might be worth it to get locked up in New Jersey. But then again....what’s “reasonable” and “appropriate” to the Courts is chicken feed to somebody who has been sitting in prison getting raped by other inmates until justice is done. Hmm?

[R L Suehr]

If I were homeless and didn’t have anything to lose, it might be worth it to get locked up in New Jersey. But then again....what’s “reasonable” and “appropriate” to the Courts is chicken feed to somebody who has been sitting in prison getting raped by other inmates until justice is done. Hmm?

You can keep coming up with overly dramatic responses about why you don't like the national reciprocity bill all you like, but I'm just trying to put facts about what it would actually do out. Also, why it would be constitutional and how it effects states rights. Personally, I wouldn't want to be a test cases either. That doesn't mean I don't think these laws should be challenged.

The only way we have to get our rights back/recognized again is to start somewhere. This would have been a good start. I'm peeved this never had a chance and probably never will again. The disingenuous information about this and even the fix nics crap that is put out there by those that are supposed to be on our side is sickening to me also. If every gun owner would back stuff like this, even the Dems would have to acquiesce to it. It's either to hard or something isn't exactly perfect or I don't like this little part, maybe in 10 years it could be bastardized in to something else. Excuse, after excuse, after etc until the good bill comes and goes and we're off to the next defense of our rights instead of trying something offensive.. I'm just guessing, but I give it 10 years tops until the entire countries laws look like prnj or commiefornia. We gunowners are just so much better at eating our own then actually fighting for anything.

A lot of this post isn't directed specifically at you by the way. It's more generalized, but your statements are indicative of a real problem in our community.

[Bang]

Does "nor shall any state deprive any person of life" mean the survivor(s) of a person shot or beaten to death because s/he was prohibited by law from carrying a gun for protection has legal recourse?

The senate will hang its hat on the "not trained, which we require of our state's residents" objection. If a definition of well-regulated (appearing in the 2nd amendment) meant "equipped and trained in the use of that equipment", the 2nd amendment works for the objecting states and against those who want reciprocity.

Reciprocity between states are agreements giving each mutual benefits and acceptance of procedures. A state requiring (say) 40 hours of training and range time, minimum scores, and such, gains nothing by allowing persons licensed to carry by simple application. I think the senate will take that stance.

If reciprocity could be achieved, it would require some compromising. That would mean no training required would become some training required. Since reciprocity is another word for national, I anticipate it would follow the DOT model. All states have motor vehicle regulations. To keep a resident from unknowingly breaking a law in a foreign state, Department Of Transportation (federal) standardized regs. Federal standardization requires federal oversight and enforcement.

"Be careful what you wish for" seems to apply in this matter

[R L Suehr]

Does "nor shall any state deprive any person of life" mean the survivor(s) of a person shot or beaten to death because s/he was prohibited by law from carrying a gun for protection has legal recourse?

The senate will hang its hat on the "not trained, which we require of our state's residents" objection. If a definition of well-regulated (appearing in the 2nd amendment) meant "equipped and trained in the use of that equipment", the 2nd amendment works for the objecting states and against those who want reciprocity.

Reciprocity between states are agreements giving each mutual benefits and acceptance of procedures. A state requiring (say) 40 hours of training and range time, minimum scores, and such, gains nothing by allowing persons licensed to carry by simple application. I think the senate will take that stance.

If reciprocity could be achieved, it would require some compromising. That would mean no training required would become some training required. Since reciprocity is another word for national, I anticipate it would follow the DOT model. All states have motor vehicle regulations. To keep a resident from unknowingly breaking a law in a foreign state, Department Of Transportation (federal) standardized regs. Federal standardization requires federal oversight and enforcement.

"Be careful what you wish for" seems to apply in this matter

And again, none of this was in the bill that passed the house or is currently in the Senate. Not even anything that would set up any kind of fed oversight or requirements. That means those would have to come from another bill and if we had the pull to get this through, we should have the pull to stop that BS too. But alas we don't have the pull to even get this through.

[Williamsmith]

I wouldn’t bail on it yet. As long as Trump is President there is a chance some form could be passed but something is going to have to be bartered in exchange.....like bump stocks and background checks. If that’s not acceptable then RL Suehr is right....we don’t have the juice to get it through on its own. Personally, I hunk we need to get anyone who dropped off the rolls of the NRA back and have each member enlist another. Like them or not they are the only ones able to lobby hard enough to get it done.