National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act: Good or Bad? What do you think??

[INMIline]

Since when? I hope you're right

i thought Ohio just started recognizing an indiana Permit?

 

[Bill of Rights]

i thought Ohio just started recognizing an indiana Permit?

Sadly, not according to their Attorney General's office:

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine - Reciprocity agreements

AK.....AZ.....AR.....DE
FL.....ID.....KY.....LA
MI.....MO.....NE.....NC
ND.....OK.....SC.....TN
UT.....VA.....WA.....WV
WY

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Sadly, not according to their Attorney General's office:

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine - Reciprocity agreements

AK.....AZ.....AR.....DE
FL.....ID.....KY.....LA
MI.....MO.....NE.....NC
ND.....OK.....SC.....TN
UT.....VA.....WA.....WV
WY

Ahhh, but aren't reciprocity and recognition different although similar?

 

[ATM]

Ahhh, but aren't reciprocity and recognition different although similar?

Yes. Reciprocity agreements are based on two states recognizing each others licenses/permits.

Although Indiana recognizes Ohio permits, the reverse is not true, they don't recognize ours. So there is no agreement of reciprocity between us.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ahhh, but aren't reciprocity and recognition different although similar?

They are, except for those states that require a reciprocal agreement. Some will not recognize without that. I don't know offhand if OH is one of those, but the point is that, as ATM said, they don't recognize our LTCH regardless.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Alamo]

Granted it would be nice if the 2A were interpreted literally, but in the real world it is not. If you think somehow that 822 is a problem, you should also be campaigning to roll back the FOPA and every concealed weapons permit ever passed. Go ahead, MAIG and the Brady bunch would love to assist.

In the real world:

As it currently stands, the 2A is infringed, but ascending. Permits-to-carry are an improvement over the previous situation, therefore they are "good." A hundred years or more ago, when it was possible to at least open carry a handgun most places, establishing a permit system was bad, but it is not a hundred years ago.

Also as it currently stands, as long as Congress uses the words "interstate commerce" in a law, they can regulate whatever existing stuff they damn well please and the SCOTUS will pronounce it Constitutional. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. Ergo, I am not going cede the entire ability of Congress to fiddle with gun laws to the MAIGs and the Brady's. As long Schumer thinks he can put up bills to restrict guns and magazines and bullets and who can carry what, I want my side to put up bills to run it the other way. If SCOTUS ever gets around to properly restricting the Commerce Clause power, then I will be happy to flush national reciprocity down the toilet with all the rest. It won't matter then. And, as others have noted, 822 has a constitutional basis in P&I also.

Efforts that expand the right-to-carry/permit-to-carry system, that will help normalize the fact that law abiding people can carry guns all over the country without it being a big deal, are good. This is what scares the crap out of Bloomberg and Schumer and MAIG and the Brady Bunch -- not the actual guns, but the fact that just like the individual state carry laws, it will become obvious to everyone that letting law abiding citizens tote their handguns across state lines is no big deal and should be perfectly normal.

One alleged gun rights organization has been running a scare campaign and peeing on the NRA about "trojan horse amendments" like that would lead to national gun registration and other un-nice things. As noted in this thread, none of them passed. What's more (and I will bet that certain "gun rights" org will not mention this), while everyone was looking at HR 822, the NRA was over in the corner getting certain other amendments tacked on the DOJ's appropriation that actually passed both houses and was signed into law by Prez O. Among them were two or three that permanently forbid national gun or gun-owner registration schemes. Check out the NRA-ILA press release here: NRA-ILA :: Twelve Big Wins for Gun Owners
The prez signed it on a friday no doubt hoping it would get little notice by his "base."

(Also note that the DOJ got stepped on for it efforts to ban Saiga and other foreign "non-sporting" shotguns.)

The NRA operates in the real world, with cards it has been dealt, and it is far better at that than any of the other gun organizations. I get frustrated too when it seems too cautious, but it is working many individual efforts (bills for and against guns, court cases, media battles) simultaneously, and it does a pretty good job of balancing them, making advancements where possible and mitigating reverses in other cases.

As far as HR 822's chances in the Senate - it has come up before in the Senate, and appeared to be supported by the majority. Unfortunately, Sen Schumer filibustered it, and the vote to over-ride his filibuster fell short by two votes, 58-39. Apparently two RINOs bailed at the last minute. That indicates that probably the majority of the Senators support it. The two key problems will be 1) Will Harry Reid let it come forward? and 2) if he does, will the Senate be able to override Schumer's big mouth? I can hardly say "Harry Reid" without spitting, but on guns he is usually on our side. If he thinks bringing HR822 forward will helps save his butt at the next election, he will do so.

If it gets thru the Senate, will Prez O sign it? He will if he thinks it gets him something. It will entirely depend on the circumstances at the time it comes to his desk.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Granted it would be nice if the 2A were interpreted literally, but in the real world it is not. If you think somehow that 822 is a problem, you should also be campaigning to roll back the FOPA and every concealed weapons permit ever passed. Go ahead, MAIG and the Brady bunch would love to assist.

In the real world:

As it currently stands, the 2A is infringed, but ascending. Permits-to-carry are an improvement over the previous situation, therefore they are "good." A hundred years or more ago, when it was possible to at least open carry a handgun most places, establishing a permit system was bad, but it is not a hundred years ago.

Also as it currently stands, as long as Congress uses the words "interstate commerce" in a law, they can regulate whatever existing stuff they damn well please and the SCOTUS will pronounce it Constitutional. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. Ergo, I am not going cede the entire ability of Congress to fiddle with gun laws to the MAIGs and the Brady's. As long Schumer thinks he can put up bills to restrict guns and magazines and bullets and who can carry what, I want my side to put up bills to run it the other way. If SCOTUS ever gets around to properly restricting the Commerce Clause power, then I will be happy to flush national reciprocity down the toilet with all the rest. It won't matter then. And, as others have noted, 822 has a constitutional basis in P&I also.

Efforts that expand the right-to-carry/permit-to-carry system, that will help normalize the fact that law abiding people can carry guns all over the country without it being a big deal, are good. This is what scares the crap out of Bloomberg and Schumer and MAIG and the Brady Bunch -- not the actual guns, but the fact that just like the individual state carry laws, it will become obvious to everyone that letting law abiding citizens tote their handguns across state lines is no big deal and should be perfectly normal.

One alleged gun rights organization has been running a scare campaign and peeing on the NRA about "trojan horse amendments" like that would lead to national gun registration and other un-nice things. As noted in this thread, none of them passed. What's more (and I will bet that certain "gun rights" org will not mention this), while everyone was looking at HR 822, the NRA was over in the corner getting certain other amendments tacked on the DOJ's appropriation that actually passed both houses and was signed into law by Prez O. Among them were two or three that permanently forbid national gun or gun-owner registration schemes. Check out the NRA-ILA press release here: NRA-ILA :: Twelve Big Wins for Gun Owners
The prez signed it on a friday no doubt hoping it would get little notice by his "base."

(Also note that the DOJ got stepped on for it efforts to ban Saiga and other foreign "non-sporting" shotguns.)

The NRA operates in the real world, with cards it has been dealt, and it is far better at that than any of the other gun organizations. I get frustrated too when it seems too cautious, but it is working many individual efforts (bills for and against guns, court cases, media battles) simultaneously, and it does a pretty good job of balancing them, making advancements where possible and mitigating reverses in other cases.

As far as HR 822's chances in the Senate - it has come up before in the Senate, and appeared to be supported by the majority. Unfortunately, Sen Schumer filibustered it, and the vote to over-ride his filibuster fell short by two votes, 58-39. Apparently two RINOs bailed at the last minute. That indicates that probably the majority of the Senators support it. The two key problems will be 1) Will Harry Reid let it come forward? and 2) if he does, will the Senate be able to override Schumer's big mouth? I can hardly say "Harry Reid" without spitting, but on guns he is usually on our side. If he thinks bringing HR822 forward will helps save his butt at the next election, he will do so.

If it gets thru the Senate, will Prez O sign it? He will if he thinks it gets him something. It will entirely depend on the circumstances at the time it comes to his desk.

Excellent synopsis, Alamo, and well-written. I look forward to more of your posts.

Rep added.

Blessings,
Bill