H.B. 38 - National Reciprocity


This is a link to the text:


I'm hoping it gets done.

Not everyone is.

Where's YOUR head at?
«1

Comments

  • It shouldn't even be necessary, just like it isn't for driver's licenses and marriages.

    I hope they can get 38 through without the fix-NICS horseshit stuff in it.
  • a) Preaching to the choir

    b) You and me both. Paul Ryan is in danger of making my cancer list.
  • Well you asked where my head was at. There it is. 

    It isn't even clear to me how it came to be the case that CCW permits (which shouldn't even exist at all) weren't automatically valid across state lines. Or another way to say it is; how did driver's licenses not end up like CCW permits?
  • And here's the text to HR 4477:


    The level of mental retardation involved in adding the part at the end about mandating a report on the number of times a bump stock is used in the commission of a crime, is profound.
  • Word around Conspiracy Central is that Ryan wants to use it as a poison pill to make a statement about not fucking with him.

    No wonder Stivers cut a deal with Bannon to get rid of him.
  • Fuck all those conniving pieces of steaming shit.
  • edited December 5
    MC Escher said:


    Where's YOUR head at?




    The bill would put Congress in the position of regulating purely intrastate conduct that is noncommercial in nature. It lacks that authority under the Constitution.

    At a more practical level, I do not believe this is going to be a victory for concealed carry in practice. If we decide that Congress possesses the general police power that would permit it to dictate state concealed carry laws, the laws applied in the Dakotas and Vermont will be influenced by the legislators for New York and California, but the voters in the Dakotas and Vermont will have no ability to influence those New York and California legislators.

    The US EPA sets the single national standard for automobile emissions, right? Well, not quite right. The federal government sets those standards for states that were really looking for those sorts of standards in the first place, but permits the states populated by environmentalist lunatics to set different standards.

    So, we will have Congress setting national concealed carry standards in Vermont and Alabama and Texas, but California and New York will get waivers and set completely different standards for everyone within their jurisdictions. This bill will have destroyed the state sovereignty that has permitted the solid majority of states to liberalize concealed carry laws over the last couple of decades.

    Federally mandated concealed carry reciprocity has all the constitutional shortcomings of universal background checks.
  • dgm said:

    It shouldn't even be necessary, just like it isn't for driver's licenses and marriages.


    I hope they can get 38 through without the fix-NICS horseshit stuff in it.



    Federally mandated reciprocity for drivers licenses is unnecessary because the states have entered into voluntary compacts. In order for the federal government to compel states to recognize concealed carry licenses the same way they do differences in marriage documents, you would need a majority of justices to test state concealed carry laws under strict scrutiny. I wish we had that, but we do not.

    The way I think this should work is that no state would be entitled to restrict one from carrying a legally possessed firearm, or require a license or a payment for a license in order to exercise the right, unless the individual were under some kind of a legal disability like a felony or domestic violence conviction, or an adjudicated incompetent.
  • edited December 5
    plausuans
  • edited December 5
    nbody said:




    The bill would put Congress in the position of regulating purely intrastate conduct that is noncommercial in nature.

    The bill is specifically in regards to how a State treats the citizens of other States, which can only be an issue in the first place if said person engages in interstate travel. How then can this be a purely intrastate issue?



    It lacks that authority under the Constitution.



    In § 926D (d) (1) the bill states the following:

    "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.

    This is a clear reference to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, which states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

    926D(a) of the bill clearly states that it only applies to states that have a permitting process and does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

    926D(b) states that:

    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.

    Section (f)(2) states:

    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.”.

    Which is clearly distinguishing it's federal authority from the States authority.



    I do not believe the rest of your argument in this post to be ripe until we have dispensed with the foundational question.

  • Zuki for president.
  • nbody said:

    Federally mandated reciprocity for drivers licenses is unnecessary because the states have entered into voluntary compacts.

    Lets pretend they hadn't and a few States refused to even discuss such an arrangement.

    Would the Central government be within it's authority to force the issue under the commerce clause even though only a portion of interstate travel involved commerce?




     The way I think this should work is that no state would be entitled to restrict one from carrying a legally possessed firearm, or require a license or a payment for a license in order to exercise the right, unless the individual were under some kind of a legal disability like a felony or domestic violence conviction, or an adjudicated incompetent.

    The way I read the text of the bill, it would appear that this is precisely what they are trying to do, with the caveat that they are actually trying to be LESS intrusive by only forcing the issue in States that have SOME type of CCL statute on the books, even if it's largely theoretical.

    Do you believe my reading to be incorrect?



  • Maybe the states affected by this will have to take their case to SCOTUS.

    That could be interesting.
  • MC Escher said:

    nbody said:




    The bill would put Congress in the position of regulating purely intrastate conduct that is noncommercial in nature.

    The bill is specifically in regards to how a State treats the citizens of other States, which can only be an issue in the first place if said person engages in interstate travel. How then can this be a purely intrastate issue?







    The activity regulated is purely intrastate.
    MC Escher said:


    "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.

    This is a clear reference to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, which states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."




    It can't be a reference to that since the text you quoted refers to the P&I under this act. Thomas has suggested a 14th Am. P&I basis for federalization of a 2d Am right, but that isn't what this bill does.

    MC Escher said:

    926D(a) of the bill clearly states that it only applies to states that have a permitting process and does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.




    It also applies to residents of states that allow unlicensed legal carry in 926D(b).
    MC Escher said:





    You can conclude that, but the concept of ripeness doesn't apply to a forecast of constitutional and political problems on the path to CCW federalization.
  • I think this is more an issue of not trying to discuss eight different issues at the same time.

    So if you can address my very first question in response to your post that would probably be a good place to start.
  • MC Escher said:

    nbody said:

    Federally mandated reciprocity for drivers licenses is unnecessary because the states have entered into voluntary compacts.

    Lets pretend they hadn't and a few States refused to even discuss such an arrangement.

    Would the Central government be within it's authority to force the issue under the commerce clause even though only a portion of interstate travel involved commerce?




     The way I think this should work is that no state would be entitled to restrict one from carrying a legally possessed firearm, or require a license or a payment for a license in order to exercise the right, unless the individual were under some kind of a legal disability like a felony or domestic violence conviction, or an adjudicated incompetent.

    The way I read the text of the bill, it would appear that this is precisely what they are trying to do, with the caveat that they are actually trying to be LESS intrusive by only forcing the issue in States that have SOME type of CCL statute on the books, even if it's largely theoretical.

    Do you believe my reading to be incorrect?



    Yes.  The bill is not eliminating licensing fees or licensing itself.  The issue isn't the degree to which Congress is being intrusive, but whether they have the power.  The content of their legislation is less an issue than the fact of their legislating on the topic.

    Feds regulate interstate commercial trucking.  To get states to handle strictly internal matters, like the 55mph speed limit, feds used simple bribery, not direct federal legislation.
  • dgm said:

    Maybe the states affected by this will have to take their case to SCOTUS.


    That could be interesting.
    That's the other problem.





    Someone from Ohio is going to visit California and produce his concealed carry permit when stopped by the police. The prosecutor will charge him, the California AG will make a big public deal out of standing up for the children and public safety and it will work its way up through the courts.

    When it gets to the Supreme Court, does anyone think that Thomas will vote to uphold this law?

    Despite what any decision actually reads, when mandated federal reciprocity is stricken by the Supreme Court, it will be covered as a reduction of the right set forth in Heller. As a political matter, that is not good for concealed carry in general.
  • MC Escher said:

    I think this is more an issue of not trying to discuss eight different issues at the same time.

    So if you can address my very first question in response to your post that would probably be a good place to start.

    I believe I responded to all of them.  Which appears unanswered?

  • The bill would put Congress in the position of regulating purely intrastate conduct that is noncommercial in nature.

    The
    bill is specifically in regards to how a State treats the citizens of
    other States, which can only be an issue in the first place if said
    person engages in interstate travel. How then can this be a purely
    intrastate issue?
  • My answer to that shows when I view the thread.

    The activity regulated is purely intrastate.  If Ohio has a traffic law that allows a right turn on red, but CA doesn't, it doesn't mean that the COTUS gives the Congress the power to regulate CA traffic because someone from outside CA comes under CA territorial jurisduction.
  • How is it purely intrastate when the question itself is only relevant in regards to interstate travelers?
  • edited December 5
    MC Escher said:

    How is it purely intrastate when the question itself is only relevant in regards to interstate travelers?

    Because the conduct regulated is only intrastate.  Turning right on red in Los Angeles isn't an interstate transaction just because you are from Ohio.

    It doesn't only apply to the act of travel.  The federal code that is supposed to grant safe passage through a state with a fiream pertains to interstate travelers.  This bill applies to citizens from another state, not just travelers.
  • Whose conduct is being regulated?
  • MC Escher said:

    Whose conduct is being regulated?

    People within the territorial jurisdiction of the state.
  • How so?

    Which part of the bill has an effect upon the residents of a State while they remain within the boundaries of that State?
  • It doesn't matter if they are residents or not. Everyone in NJ is subject to NJ law while they are in NJ.
  • MC Escher said:

    How so?




    The people regulated are within the territorial jurisdiction of the state.
    MC Escher said:

    Which part of the bill has an effect upon the residents of a State while they remain within the boundaries of that State?




    The part that permits them to enforce licensing documents issued by other states.

  • The law would obviously have an effect on the STATE.

    How would it have an effect on the PEOPLE?
  • MC Escher said:


    How would it have an effect on the PEOPLE?




    The part that permits them to enforce licensing documents issued by other states.
  • Can you rephrase that?

    I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.
Sign In or Register to comment.