Wednesday - September 14, 2011

Reciprocity

First, a little background ...

Reciprocity: you show me yours and I’ll show you mine. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The whole reciprocity concept falls under Article IV Section 1 and Section 2 of the US Constitution:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

In terms of licensing, reciprocity often - but not always - means that licenses granted in one state are valid in all other states. This is the fulcrum for the whole Gay Marriage thing; get married in Massachusetts, and you are considered to be married in Arizona. Get a driver’s license in Oklahoma and you can legally drive in New Jersey. But the concept is not directly federally mandated, even though it appears to be in the ‘Privileges and Immunities’ clause. Some licenses, such as a license to practice law or medicine, are state only; the rest are generally recognized by the Several States. License (in it’s basic definition as permission) to issue insurance has been in-state only for a very long time. And that is where the rub comes in, especially concerning guns.

In Section 1 it does look like Congress has the power to make laws that would enforce reciprocity, although this has not often (ever?) been done before. Now there is a bill before the House that would flex that Section 1 muscle and mandate Concealed Carry reciprocity. On the surface this would appear to be a bill that enlarges the freedoms of the citizenry, so I’d be in favor of it. But there are several bumps in the road, not the least of which is that a couple of states have no licensing or permitting process at all concerning firearms ( I should wish that all states were that way ).

The bill in question is called HR 822: the national right-to-carry Act of 2011. It had been in committee for a long time, but by May enough cosponsors had signed on to force it to a debate on the floor:

This bill gained 13 more cosponsors bringing the total to 227. Well over the top needed to get this bill moving. We could be seeing the beginning of the first movement of a gun related bill in the last two Congresses. Which brings up an interesting problem not only for the Senate, but for Obama as well.

Lets look at this from a purely political point of view and forget the Constitutionality aspect. This actually appears to be able to pass the House. If so, you can bet your bottom dollar, the Senate is watching this and already know there is a distinct possibility that they will have to debate/pass/reject this bill. What do they do? Well, we are in the beginning of the so called campaign mode. Each and every one of the Class 1 senators are up for re-election in ‘12. So, what do they do? Most likely pass the bill.

NOW it hits Obama’s desk. He has already angered the far left, and now he is faced with this. What does he do? He knows full well both Gore and Kerry lost their bid for the White House because of the “gun” issue, and at the moment, his re-election is in serious doubt. Does he veto the bill and remain in doubt, or does he sign the bill into law and increase his chances at re-election because he will have gained a considerable amount of the “gun vote”.

The plot thickens.

• Please recall that at least 48 states have laws that allow CCW at this point. Putting a gun in your pocket legally is a done deal in almost the entire nation. 41 states are either Shall Issue or Unrestricted at this point in time. The 7 May Issue states are a mixed bag, where May Issue can mean anything from Never Issue anywhere to Shall Issue in this or that county only.


• Please recall that most of those states already have reciprocity agreements with all, most, or many of those other states. It is labyrinthine and confusing though.


• Please recall that federal laws already exist that allow police, retired police, and certain special people to carry in all the states.

Now on to the story

House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines.

Although many states have entered into voluntary agreements, there is no nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly. A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Heath Shuler, D-N.C., aims to change that.

Supporters say the measure would not create a federal licensing system, but would require that all states recognize lawfully issued permits—regardless of where they were issued. Gun rights advocacy groups say it’s the only way to make sure that lawful gun owners’ Second Amendment rights are guaranteed when they travel away from their home states.

But opponents say the bill tramples on each state’s autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems. Foes also said that the law could allow violent offenders to hold on to their weapons.

Testifying before Congress on Tuesday, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told the story of Marqus Hill, a man whose Pennsylvania gun permit was revoked after he was charged with attempted murder.

“Despite his record, he then used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia,” Ramsey said. “He eventually shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest killing him on the street.”

Not mentioned in the news article is that Ramsey is an anti-gun zealot right up there with NYC Mayor Bloomberg, or that Philadelphia has routinely, almost annually, passed anti-gun legislation that the PA courts have then thrown out.

So what to do? Gosh, let’s bring in the PACS and see what they have to say! [duh, who could’ve seen that coming? {sarc} And I wonder what they’ll say? {/sarc}]

Gun rights advocates say the dire warnings about expanding the rights of law-abiding citizens are overblown. Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association, said the American public is more interested in self-defense than scare tactics. He’s also predicting a win for what has been dubbed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

“It cuts across Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives—even President Obama’s base is strongly in favor of this legislation,” LaPierre said..

Gun control groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have successfully defeated similar legislation in the past, and vow to stop this bill as well. They’re aligning with a number of elected officials and law enforcement organizations, who say this measure would make it even tougher for officers to determine which guns are on the streets legally or illegally.

Somewhere in here I hope there is room for some truth. National criminal databases already exist, and I’m fairly sure that they can be accessed in real-time right from the computer that most police cars have in the front seat these days. So such a determination may not be all that difficult, although it make take a minor change and a bit of IT work on those databases to make a “no guns” notation for certain convictions that would then come up on a field query put in by an officer on the street.

Licensing and permitting procedures may need to be ramped up to a common standard, and that common standard will have to be of the California/New York/New Jersey level of drill-down. On the other hand, since all states are now required to use the NICS system for firearms purchases done at gun stores, and that the NICS system already checks those aforementioned databases (the implication thus is that such a “no guns” notation already must exist!), that common standard may already exist de facto. So Chief Ramsey’s fear may only bear fruit when we’re talking about felons from Alaska and Vermont who purchased their guns via private sales (aka “the notorious Gun Show Loophole") ... and I don’t think that group of felons is large enough to be a problem here in NJ or even across the river in PA. Maybe the ones from Arizona are the trouble makers, I can’t say.

But you can expect the media to make a full on symphony out of playing the heartstrings.

Personally, I’m in favor of HR 822. Heck, I want it to become even larger: pass it into national law (losing Obama even more of his base, yeehaa!) and then listen to the New Jersey Legislature try and keep their state “May Issue” (which in truth means “Except For You” for 99.999998% of us) when citizens of all the other 57 states can now carry here but the actual residents can’t. Another entertaining bit of theater would take place in Illinois, the last remaining state to flatly deny it’s citizens the right to carry. Can’t you just see the hangdog expressions on the left wing IL legislators when their golden boy in DC signs a national reciprocity law?

Full text of HR 322 is here.

Posted by Drew458     on 09/14/2011 at 08:35 AM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner