National reciprocity
Massad Ayoob has a look at the bill:
As written, it would appear that a resident of, say, San Francisco who currently pretty much has to get elected to the citys Board of Supervisors to qualify for a permit, would be able to carry in their home city on a non-resident permit from Utah or Florida if HR 38 became the law of the land. And their law-abiding friends and relatives all over the country could carry for their and their loved ones protection while visiting.
I’m still skeptical of the Republican commitment to actually go on offense for gun rights.
January 31st, 2017 at 9:35 pm
I’m skeptical, too.
But if they don’t do it, me and a lot of folk like me won’t be showing up much, if at all, any time soon…
If they do… hell, if that bill passes I’d be tempted to go so far as donate to a politician again.
February 1st, 2017 at 12:45 am
“If they do… hell, if that bill passes I’d be tempted to go so far as donate to a politician again.”
That’s most likely the only reason those lowlives would do it. I wouldn’t donate a plugged nickel to any scumbag Politician. (But I repeat myself)
February 1st, 2017 at 9:57 am
I’m also leery. Adam has it right. The GOP establishment uses 2A to get donors and voters. Nothing else.
Prediction: this bill will “fail” in the Senate because of a filibuster, and the GOP will tell us that if we just send them more money and GOP Senators then…next time. “It’s all Schumer’s fault!” they’ll say.
At the same time, there will be plenty of room for pet projects on appropriations bills, and the filibuster will be suspended for pet amendments not 2A related.
They really do hate us. We’re just cheap whores they call on when they need us, but then get tossed out with the trash before the sun even rises.
Not true. At least whores leave with something in the morning. We just get screwed.
February 1st, 2017 at 11:07 am
Going on offense would be something like rolling back every infringement including NFA 34, and prosecuting everyone involved in legislating an infringement for deprivation of rights under color of law. Anything less is unserious wind-breaking.
February 1st, 2017 at 1:17 pm
Just grandstanding. There’s a Tenth Amendment bar. The same one that struck down the federal no-guns-in-school-zones law. If they’re serious, they’ll pass it in D.C. and other U.S. territories and reservations where the federal government has plenary jurisdiction. If they’re serious and not just grandstanding.
What Congress can do about carry in the several states is authorize an interstate compact that the states are free to join like the one for drivers licenses.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:32 pm
@nk: There is no “Tenth Amendment Bar” because there are a host of ways the Constitution protects civil rights that cannot be trumped by so-called “States Rights”.
NJ cannot establish Islam as the state religion; Alabama cannot ban “crazy Hipster magazines”; Illinois cannot stop the KKK from marching and California cannot ban all religion. Likewise, New York cannot just bust down doors looking for drugs because the occupants, “look shifty”.
They cannot do those things because the fucking Constitution is clear: the government cannot do those things. That includes federal AND state governments.
So defensive carry either is a civil right or it is some kind of earned privilege afforded by politicians at the state level. If you think the Second amendment is a civil right then respect it like the First and the Fourth. It should be protected the same way: by any and all levels of government.
States have no rights. None. Rights are reserved for humans. States have “powers” – it’s in the text of the Amendment. The moment you afford any government any “right” you might as well go stock up on brown shirts and burn your liberty card, because there is no way your rights mean shit when you let the government claim to have a “right” to rule you.
Federalism is not a suicide pact. We The People(tm) have fundamental rights. Federalism is a system where both teams should compete to protect them. But were the state fails, the federal can (and should) step up.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:34 pm
OK that sounded angry. No edit button. I was aiming for “respectfully frustrated”.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:40 pm
Patrick, the jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment has not yet matched that on speech, assembly, religion and privacy rights. Right now, MacDonald v. Chicago extends to all states the 2nd Amendment right to keep arms for self defense in one’s home. But bearing arms outside the home has not yet been litigated clearly at the Supreme Court. So states and localities are trampling all over that inherent right still.
That the difference between authority and rights is confused by almost everyone is to me clear evidence that the confusion is purposefully promulgated. Screw that, I want limited authority in my government, especially where my rights are concerned, and I applaud you for railing on a pet peeve of mine in noting that distinction.
February 2nd, 2017 at 2:41 pm
I’m worried that in order to pass it the squishy Republican senate-protoplasm would dilute and queer-up the bill with all sorts of weird shit, like making it a “reciprocity-permit” in order to cash-in on their state’s client-base of “State Licensed Gun-somethings” and requiring aspiring permit-holders to take certain Gun-cla$$es offered by local Mall-Ninjas.
February 2nd, 2017 at 7:21 pm
NotClauswitz, I’m more concerned that LEO’s in the current non-permissive states will find other reasons to jack up CCW’ers. “Well, you’re permit is good, but we’re arresting you for mopery” sort of thing.
My son’s father-in-law has a permit issued in Fresno, but won’t carry in the SF Bay area because of this.
February 4th, 2017 at 11:44 am
Huck: That’s why I only said “tempted.” I still don’t trust the Stupid Party. :/
February 6th, 2017 at 11:04 am
“My son’s father-in-law has a permit issued in Fresno, but won’t carry in the SF Bay area because of this.” –rickn8or
But I thought SF was a “sanctuary city”! Oh, that’s right, they DISCRIMINATE re: who gets “sanctuary”.