Reciprocity in the tax bill

[pitchbaby]

What's the deal here? Dem's are adding over 300 billion in pork on this cause it "HASSED TO" be passed... And we can't get one gun rights senator to think to add reciprocity for all which doesn't cost a dime?!?!? What the freaking hell is that?

I'm no fan of this bill with all the crap added in, but since it's gonna get passed anyway, I see it as a perfect opportunity to slip in reciprocity that includes home state carry with an out of state permit.

Is it just me, or are we losing big time on this one?

[J.D.Allen]

What's the deal here? Dem's are adding over 300 billion in pork on this cause it "HASSED TO" be passed... And we can't get one gun rights senator to think to add reciprocity for all which doesn't cost a dime?!?!? What the freaking hell is that?

I'm no fan of this bill with all the crap added in, but since it's gonna get passed anyway, I see it as a perfect opportunity to slip in reciprocity that includes home state carry with an out of state permit.

Is it just me, or are we losing big time on this one?

Did pigs learn to fly all of a sudden?

jk

Really though remember we don't have the new house yet...

[safewaysecurity]

What's the deal here? Dem's are adding over 300 billion in pork on this cause it "HASSED TO" be passed... And we can't get one gun rights senator to think to add reciprocity for all which doesn't cost a dime?!?!? What the freaking hell is that?

I'm no fan of this bill with all the crap added in, but since it's gonna get passed anyway, I see it as a perfect opportunity to slip in reciprocity that includes home state carry with an out of state permit.

Is it just me, or are we losing big time on this one?

Call Ron Paul I bet he will do it XD

[mdimeo]

What's the deal here? Dem's are adding over 300 billion in pork on this cause it "HASSED TO" be passed... And we can't get one gun rights senator to think to add reciprocity for all which doesn't cost a dime?!?!? What the freaking hell is that?

I'm no fan of this bill with all the crap added in, but since it's gonna get passed anyway, I see it as a perfect opportunity to slip in reciprocity that includes home state carry with an out of state permit.

Is it just me, or are we losing big time on this one?

Democrats still control the house; there's some chance of this in the next session.

[travelshot]

Reciprocity of permits is a state issue. You really want to hand over more control to the fed govt?

[Dr Rockso]

Reciprocity of permits is a state issue. You really want to hand over more control to the fed govt?

IMO the Constitution provides that authority via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[sholling]

Reciprocity of permits is a state issue. You really want to hand over more control to the fed govt?

Interstate travel and enforcement of civil rights is a national issue.

[pitchbaby]

Reciprocity of permits is a state issue. You really want to hand over more control to the fed govt?

You would be correct if it weren't for that pesky 2nd Amendment thing.

[dantodd]

Travelshot, this is a good point and demonstrates how SCOTUS got mcDonald wrong. due process shouldn't be applied to substantive rights. Carrying a gun will be a civil right just like getting married, you don't have to get married in each state to which you move or through which you travel. Same goes for 2A. As someone else pointed out out should be covered by full faith and credit clause.

[N6ATF]

I'd rather it just be made a federal crime to infringe on the 2A, in other words no green paper in, no rice paper out.

[POLICESTATE]

Reciprocity of permits is a state issue. You really want to hand over more control to the fed govt?

Sure why not? In for a pound, in for a penny. As the case may be.

[J.D.Allen]

Reciprocity of permits is a state issue. You really want to hand over more control to the fed govt?

When it affects a U.S. citizen's ability to travel between different states of the union? Yes.

[travelshot]

IMO the Constitution provides that authority via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

I think a structure where every state agreed on a set of rules for reciprocal concealed carry would obviously be ideal. That's unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

As far as the FFCC, I don't disagree with you in theory, but that is simply not our current judicial state.

It is pretty settled current law that a State can enforce legislation that is more restrictive than another state's, including requiring restrictive permitting. A legislative attempt at his point to bypass that standard would be doomed to fail at the SC level under the current constitutional review.

Again, theoretically, the enforcement of FFCC as it pertains to our issue could be a valid argument as there is no compelling reason not enforce it (similar to a marriage issue).

The problem is that jumping the gun without foundational legal decisions blows a fair shot at it.

It is not a 2A issue at this point, because, again, under the current scheme, the 2A is viewed as entitling you to own/carry a firearm, not to carry it concealed. That's just the way it is right now.

As far as the interstate issue, it is not interstate travel, but interstate commerce.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the first in line to get a multistate CCW permit. There is however a reason why even the most pro gun politicians are not trying to piggyback it on a bill.

(I am working, so if this made no sense, I'll try to edit it later )

[yellowfin]

Originally Posted by Dr Rockso

IMO the Constitution provides that authority via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

I think a structure where every state agreed on a set of rules for reciprocal concealed carry would obviously be ideal. That's unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

As far as the FFCC, I don't disagree with you in theory, but that is simply not our current judicial state.

It is pretty settled current law that a State can enforce legislation that is more restrictive than another state's, including requiring restrictive permitting. A legislative attempt at his point to bypass that standard would be doomed to fail at the SC level under the current constitutional review.

Again, theoretically, the enforcement of FFCC as it pertains to our issue could be a valid argument as there is no compelling reason not enforce it (similar to a marriage issue).

The problem is that jumping the gun without foundational legal decisions blows a fair shot at it.

It is not a 2A issue at this point, because, again, under the current scheme, the 2A is viewed as entitling you to own/carry a firearm, not to carry it concealed. That's just the way it is right now.

Then have 50 state open carry for travel. That'd be the simplest solution for everyone and is consistent with what is in place in more states than not.

[travelshot]

Then have 50 state open carry for travel. That'd be the simplest solution for everyone and is consistent with what is in place in more states than not.

That would be a logical and easy solution.

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the 2A should not be treated as a basic right, etc. All I am saying is that if we actually want to get this done, then it will be done one step at a time through the courts. When in court, we have to play by their rules, which are the law as it currently exists, not as it should exist. Even if the current law makes no sense.

/rant