National Reciprocity Bill Will Apply to Non-Resident Gun Carry Permits
- Thread starter EMSBronco
- Start date
Karpteach
6.5 Creedmoor
Thank god. There's hope for us NY Pee On's.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
This is what my dreams are made of.
So...it'll probably have to stay in my dreams.
So...it'll probably have to stay in my dreams.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
I imagine for states that are constitutional carry, your ccw permit would be your driver's license or non-driver photo id.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Funny. His actual bill says otherwise.
‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), 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, other than the State of residence of the person,
‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), 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, other than the State of residence of the person,
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
This is the part that always gets me.
4excal
.338 Win Mag
Dreams indeed..
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
I think that part of the problem with any legislation like this is that those writing the bills do not understand just how oppressive the Liberal regimes are in states like ours.
The authors of such legislation probably believe that they are doing the right thing for their constituents who could get trapped by interstate laws. What they don't realize is that those of us in Liberal states are really oppressed.
The authors of such legislation probably believe that they are doing the right thing for their constituents who could get trapped by interstate laws. What they don't realize is that those of us in Liberal states are really oppressed.
Last edited:
I still see another problem with it.
I strongly believe that places like NYC will claim that they will not allow any CCW holders, whether from upstate NY counties, or from out of NY state to carry there. I think the issue comes down to permit holders having to abide by the laws of the state they are visiting. And here in New Yorkistan, the laws prohibit us from carrying in places like state parks, or on school grounds, or in NYC.
Don't get me wrong, I believe this bill would be a huge and very welcome improvement. I just think it is not bulletproof, and not comprehensive when it comes to dealing with the anti gunners and their laws out there.
I strongly believe that places like NYC will claim that they will not allow any CCW holders, whether from upstate NY counties, or from out of NY state to carry there. I think the issue comes down to permit holders having to abide by the laws of the state they are visiting. And here in New Yorkistan, the laws prohibit us from carrying in places like state parks, or on school grounds, or in NYC.
Don't get me wrong, I believe this bill would be a huge and very welcome improvement. I just think it is not bulletproof, and not comprehensive when it comes to dealing with the anti gunners and their laws out there.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
If NYC did not allow concealed carry, there would be no reciprocity. The thing is that they do. A citizen of NYC can get a licence. Strings and favors have to be pulled but the ability is there. That person with a NYC license will have reciprocity with CT for example and the CT licensee has to have reciprocity with NYC.
Previously in DC where they banned concealed carry altogether, DC would not have to had recognize someone's out of state permit. But now that they do issue them out, they have to.
The same goes with NJ. The average citizen cannot get one but there is a system for those that show a need.
zogger
22lr
It will be interesting on how this applies to NYC and NYC residents. I agree NYC will claim they no one can carry there except people with NYC permits but this could force the issue into the courts.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
They can't. It would be Federal law. They previously tried that with LEOSA and with FOPA but failed.
They would have to go to the Supreme Court and claim violations of states rights. Not sure if they would get the ruling they want out of a Trump court after 3 Justice Appointments.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Such a court could conceivable buy, and uphold, the states' rights issue. But...it could also recommend that the legislative branch do something like assert the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and canonize "constitutional carry."
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
But what state's rights would be infringed? The right to allow some to carry in their city while others can't.
If there was a total ban on carrying in NYC via concealed carry licenses, then they would have a leg to stand on.
Yes it could go, right or wrong depending on how you view it.
Violation of the 10th amendment, forcing the states to recognize things they don't want to. The Federal government does not have a delegated power to force their will on the states for no apparent reason. That is why they typically go the extortion route, withholding federal funding until the states change the laws.
The court could also see that the states are violating both the 2nd and the 14th amendments and potentially end all state gun laws. Since the states are restricted from violations of the bill of rights by the 14th.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
All of a sudden the Left would become great admirers of the 10th Amendment (which....they've despised for years).
NEVER MIND....your post above beat me to the point.
- Look if this gets passed than all the scum liberal anti gun peice of shit areas that deny carry would be going against the law a will be subject to a righteous clobbering by the federal government. And if not that how it needs to be.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes. That makes sense.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
The 2 amendment is in the Constitution and a lot of states are violating it. Maybe I'm wrong, but the 10th amendment doesn't grant the states the power to violate an enumerated right, listed in the bill of rights. Remember, these are natural rights and the Constitution is the contract that restricts the power of government. I know the states can pass tougher laws than the federal government, but I feel like its backwards. If the constitution is the framework of our rule of law and sets limits on government power, then shouldn't the federal and state governments be bound to NOT being able to pass stricter laws then what's listed in the bill of rights? IE) the amendments be taken literally and if anything, expanded upon to further restrain government power.
The first 10 amendments limited the powers of the Federal Government, it wasn't until the ratification of the 14th Amendment that the states were restricted ( as in specifically) from violating individual rights. It wasn't until Heller in 2008 that the 2nd was considered incorporated into the 14th amendment.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
to be clear, i prefer no permitting system as a permitting system itself is unconstitutional. with that said, this is a needed stepping stone because permits arent going away without a long trail to a very conservative SCOTUS.
if this passes, liberal states would surely sue the fed for a violation of states rights, and they would lose. in the mean time, they might arrest out of staters, or anyone who carries in nyc and gets caught. most likely they would enforce their own state laws until they lose, and i dont know how that would go over with the fed, but I really wouldnt care. liberal shit holes like nyc are the most dangerous places to be, yet we cant be armed.
if this passes, i will carry with me every single day in nyc while im at work. now i have a restricted ny permit, but unrestricted CT permit... CT wins!
if this passes, liberal states would surely sue the fed for a violation of states rights, and they would lose. in the mean time, they might arrest out of staters, or anyone who carries in nyc and gets caught. most likely they would enforce their own state laws until they lose, and i dont know how that would go over with the fed, but I really wouldnt care. liberal shit holes like nyc are the most dangerous places to be, yet we cant be armed.
if this passes, i will carry with me every single day in nyc while im at work. now i have a restricted ny permit, but unrestricted CT permit... CT wins!
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
But wasn't there always the supremacy clause? If so, wouldn't that have made most of the 14th redundant?
well yes and no, they could until the 14th amendment. Most State Constitutions had a provision for the right to keep and bear arms in it already so there was no reason to believe the states would violate the people's right to keep and bare arms. States have violated voters rights and other rights all from the birth of the nation all the way through to today.
I completely agree with the first part of @Celt post.
apples and oranges
Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Laws that don't violate states rights are covered by the supremacy clauses. Treaties with foreign nations, federal murder law, kidnapping that sort of thing, would be covered by Article 6. The Federal government cannot make a law that says California must give its water to Nevada without compensation.
