Here’s one I have mixed emotions on: H.R. 822: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
Basically, national reciprocity.
On the gut level, I like it. Means I could carry in California. The wording strives to honor the state’s laws and intentions. That’s all good.
But yet, this bothers me because it isn’t honoring a state’s intentions. California wants to consider most US Citizens as untrustworthy (they’d rather let everyone smoke pot than background-checked citizens carry guns… yeah, which is more dangerous, but I digress): they are may-issue to their own residents, and they won’t honor licenses from any other state. If California wants to behave that way, why shouldn’t we let them? This federal bill steps over state’s rights.
Now, here’s your NRA presser about it. And yes, that’s all right and good. But the analogy they make is using drivers licenses:
It would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.
As far as I knew, recognizing drivers’ licenses was also a state thing, just so happens all 50 states (and the various territories) recognize the drivers licenses from all 50 states. At least, that’s the impression I’m under. Consider Texas Administrative Code Title 37 Part 1 Chapter 15 Subchapter E Rule §15.92
The Department grants like reciprocity for driver licensing to residents of other states.
(1) Nonresident recognition in Texas of licenses held by persons from other states, territories of the United States, provinces of Canada, and the United States military service is based upon Texas Transportation Code, §521.029, and administrative policies. Thus:
(A) residents of other states, including the District of Columbia but excluding United States territories and the provinces of Canada, who are at least 16 years of age may drive in Texas on a valid license from their home state, as a Class C or Class M driver only.
Looks like the state is granting it, not the Fed. However, is there something codified in Federal law that forces all states to honor each other’s drivers licenses? Or perhaps if not formal law, incentive (e.g. all states have the drinking age at 21, but that’s merely uniform not Federal law… but it was Federally coerced because .gov said if you want to keep getting federal road funding you’ll up your age thus every state did). I honestly don’t know and my Google-Fu is weak this morning. If you know and can reference the section of Federal law that grants this, that would be appreciated.
And even if you look at Section 2 “Findings” in H.R. 822’s text, it does provide justification as to why the Fed can do this. But yet, it’s hard to say. There are ways to justify it, there are ways to not justify it (because there are legit places for the Fed to override the State, and places where they overstep). Hrm. I’ll just say I’m unwilling to gain a win for my side, no matter how much it benefits me, if it’s not the right way to get the win. I want a clean win. Would this be a clean win?
Stuff From Hsoi 
A clean win? I guess that depends on your viewpoint. The SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on the “and bear arms” part of the 2nd Amendment, yet, so we don’t know what it “really” means. A large number of folks feel that phrase means that the 2nd Amendment grants the right to actually carry a weapon at all times (perhaps subject to a small amount of restriction, ala the 1st Amendment). Now that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, there would appear to be a Constitutional basis for the proposed law if you subscribe to that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, there’s technically not a need for this law, in that case – it should simply be valid to carry, period.
To me, this law would just be affirmation of the Constitution…
The only sticking point I have is it appears to be trumping state’s rights and autonomy. Is this reaching too far? I mean, my understanding is other licenses like drivers and marriage are state-based and valid in other states because those other states choose to honor them, and it just so happens all 50 honor the others so we have “100% reciprocity” across the board in this case. But again, it’s all state-level. So, why should reciprocity for carry be any different?
But then yes, you have things like the recent SCOTUS rulings that have changed the landscape. That brings a different flavor to the mix than drivers and marriage licenses (tho yet, we have things like DOMA when it comes to marriage).
Would I like to be able to defend myself anywhere and everywhere I freely desire to travel? Yes, because I know there are no “safe zones” and that “gun free zones” are merely “victim full” zones. I just do not want to gain a win in a way that sets bad precedent that could later come back to bite us in the butt if that same standard got applied in other areas. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, so let’s make sure we do it clean. That’s all.
Er, not even close. California is may-issue by law, with effectively unlimited discretion, and no-issue in practice in most non-rural counties.
Whoops!! That was a typo… and a really bad one at that! *blush* Thanx for catching it. Let me correct.
Seems there’s a ‘poison pill’ in HR 822. There are ‘standards’ to which every state must adhere in order to qualify for ‘reciprocity’. There are federal standards. Federal standards that may be changed by Congress. Federal standards to qualify for a concealed weapons permit anywhere.
I’m not liking the way it reads.
With you, it sounds great on the face of it. But as the devil is always in the details – forgive me for being so trite – the devil is always in the legislature.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
Essentially this means a birth certificate or marriage or divorce or court order of support or conviction or driver’s license properly executed by the laws of any state is valid in all others. Seems to me the legal basis is already there. And requires no further ‘standardization’ by Congress.
I think I want to pass on HR 822.
If, and only if, constitutional carry was enforced in each state by this, would it be a good idea. Driving is legal in all 50 states. Possession and carry of fire arms is not. Were all states constitutional carry with varying restrictions on exactly where you could carry I guess this would not be an issue. Funny, I think it was that way once upon a time.