Paul Ryan Lets National Reciprocity Stall

[xsubsailor]

Well..... so much for that idea.

 

In a Thursday report, Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety took a victory lap over the fact that the Republicans control the House yet Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) is not advancing national reciprocity.

National Reciprocity was introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) on January 3, 2017  and Gun Owners of America reported that it had 199 co-sponsors by June 21, 2017. Yet Second Amendment supporters have seen no action on the bill from Ryan or Congressional leadership.

So Everytown is claiming a win.

Politico reported, “Republicans in Washington keep promising rollbacks of gun control laws” but “so far haven’t taken action on any on it.”

There is no evidence that Everytown has anything to do with Ryan’s inaction, but the inaction lets Everytown gloat nonetheless.

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Mo Brooks (R-AL), and Barry Loudermilk (R-KY) emerged from the June 14 Alexandria attack with a sharp focus on concealed carry and the ability to have a gun on one’s person for self-defense regardless of the state (or district) through which one is traveling. Second Amendment supporters hope Massie, Brooks, and Loudermilk can motivate Ryan to act on behalf of gun owners at a time like this; a time when Republicans control the House and Senate, and have a president who has already made clear he supports national reciprocity for concealed carry.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/13/everytown-takes-victory-lap-paul-ryan-lets-national-reciprocity-stall/

[Randall53]

Is anyone surprised? I'm not.

[xsubsailor]

Disappointed, yes. Surprised, no

[Garufa]

14 minutes ago, Randall53 said:

Is anyone surprised? I'm not.

Not surprised and am actually kind of happy about it.  National Reciprocity sounds good in theory but in fact 1) takes away the right of States, and 2) would lead to federal control of licensing and permitting.

Does anyone seriously want that?

[Randall53]

1 hour ago, Garufa said:

Not surprised and am actually kind of happy about it.  National Reciprocity sounds good in theory but in fact 1) takes away the right of States, and 2) would lead to federal control of licensing and permitting.

Does anyone seriously want that?

Good points Garufa. The Feds seem to take everything they do to the extreme. 

[Erik88]

2 hours ago, Garufa said:

Not surprised and am actually kind of happy about it.  National Reciprocity sounds good in theory but in fact 1) takes away the right of States, and 2) would lead to federal control of licensing and permitting.

Does anyone seriously want that?

Do we know that 2nd point for certain? I've never really seen how they plan for this to look. 

[cannoncocker]

How do we know?  One only has to look at the federal government's abuse of the commerce clause.

[E4 No More]

16 hours ago, Garufa said:

Not surprised and am actually kind of happy about it.  National Reciprocity sounds good in theory but in fact 1) takes away the right of States, and 2) would lead to federal control of licensing and permitting.

Does anyone seriously want that?

Serious question: Are you OK with individual states taking away our rights, but not OK with taking away state's rights?

[Ugly]

The "shall not be infringed" part has been entirely infringed. 

Otherwise a simple blanket statement guaranteeing our 2nd amendment right would cover it. 

While I agree the states shouldn't be run by the federal overlords,  the states shouldn't suppress citizens of other states. 

Becoming a criminal because some misguided loony is ridiculous. It does keep me out of those places though which is ok with me. 

[Hozzie]

Serious question: Are you OK with individual states taking away our rights, but not OK with taking away state's rights?

Apples and Oranges, but yes. This is how our Constitution works. Don't like your states laws, vote people in to change them or move to a State you agree with.

[E4 No More]

On 7/14/2017 at 10:24 AM, Hozzie said:

Apples and Oranges, but yes. This is how our Constitution works. Don't like your states laws, vote people in to change them or move to a State you agree with.

No, not apples to oranges. Rights are numerated in The U.S. Constitution that were signed off by the states of said union. The Supreme Court is a branch of the Federal Government that is ultimately responsible for upholding The U.S. Constitution; not the state. It's not a state right to remove a right that is given by The  U.S. Constitution.

Edited July 20, 2017 by SWJewellTN
Spelling

[Garufa]

3 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

Serious question: Are you OK with individual states taking away our rights, but not OK with taking away state's rights?

Rights are going to be taken away at some level, of that you can be assured. It's best they start locally as the Constitution intended so at least there are several layers of redress available via state and federal court systems.  Once it's a federal issue then there is less chance of success, IHMO.

Philosophy aside, I truly believe the feds getting involved with handgun carry permitting will not end well.  Now I have no idea what the details of the proposed law are but I could easily see it eventually leading to national standards for permits.  Once they get done haggling over the details of that, I have a feeling there will be some pretty strict standards to meet to apply and keep a permit, standards that will change constantly as no-gun states get a bigger say in how free states see fit to exercise their rights.

[hkusp40cal]

I guess I misunderstood what this bill was going to enable.  I thought it was basically going to treat your TN permit just like your TN drivers license in the other states, ie Full faith and credit.  I did not think it was going to have anything to do with the feds deciding who got a permit.

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, hkusp40cal said:

I guess I misunderstood what this bill was going to enable.  I thought it was basically going to treat your TN permit just like your TN drivers license in the other states, ie Full faith and credit.  I did not think it was going to have anything to do with the feds deciding who got a permit.

Just because it starts there, doesn't mean it ends there. Think about the changes made to your TNDL in the last few years to bring it in line with federal RealID standards. 

[scooter]

I encourage everyone to actually read the texts of the two bills under consideration, HR 38 and S 446. It has nothing to do with the Full Faith and Credit Clause or the 2nd Amendment. It uses the Commerce Clause to override state laws. Once you leave your state of residence, you engage in interstate commerce and your possessions and activities using those possessions can now be regulated by the federal government. At least, that's the argument these two bills make. It is the same argument many other federal gun control laws make, by the way, including the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

[JAB]

I have said many times that a Federal Government with the power to tell some states that they must allow handgun carry simultaneously gains the ability to tell all states that they cannot allow anyone to legally carry.  No, thanks.

Also, again, for those who want to bring up driver's licenses think about where many of the federal emissions controls on motor vehicles originated and where the impetus for more/stricter EPA regulations usually come from.  Yep, Kalifornistan.  Do you really want a National Concealed Carry system with regulations and requirements that originate on the left coast?  I certainly do not.  This really is an issue best left to the states.

Further, even if national reciprocity were in place would any of you actually dare to try and carry in New York or California?  Keep in mind that, just as with operating a motor vehicle, you would be responsible for knowing and obeying all the rules and regulations for firearm carry that are in place in those states and cities - and you can bet that those states and cities would place such onerous regulations on carry that nearly anything one did would be grounds for arrest and forfeiture of the firearm.  In other words, a TN permit holder might be theoretically legal to carry in New York but it would still be so troublesome and have so many potential legal pitfalls (which could impact the ability to have a carry permit, period) that it would be practically impossible.  I'll pass on that.  Our current system may be flawed but expecting the federal government to make something 'better' is kind of like expecting Leatherface from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies to perform precision surgery - it isn't going to happen and, IMO, we should really all know better.

Edited July 18, 2017 by JAB

[300winmag]

LEOSA was passed over ten years ago and pistol license reciprocity would seem to fall under commerce clause just like LEOSA.  Feds use commerce clause for everything.

Feds also have basically strong armed the states into accepting each others' marriage licenses, whether the states like it or not.  The feds also basically forced the states to raise the drinking age to 21 and lower the drunk driving blood alcohol level down to 0.08.  If MADD can lobby for those changes what is wrong with the NRA getting something to benefit us?  Our country has long since past the point of having states that truly are independent of one another like when our country was founded.

I hate to let you know but Tennessee isn't the most carry friendly place in the country either.  Until this year, you were better off with a pistol license in California as far as restrictions than in Tennessee.  You're probably still better off carrying there even if you can't carry in schools.  Places that are seen as 'liberal' such as Rhode Island, Delaware, Oregon, are much better carry wise than this state.  Even New York does not fine you for walking past a 'no gun' sign like Tennessee.  This state has gone from an almost worthless to have permit if you wanted to follow the law to a somewhat better situation.  I'd say TN used to be one of the worst in the country as far as carry restrictions until the past several years.

Edited July 19, 2017 by 300winmag

[JAB]

On 7/18/2017 at 8:01 PM, 300winmag said:

 If MADD can lobby for those changes what is wrong with the NRA getting something to benefit us?

Nothing, of course.  The problem is that I don't for one second believe that national reciprocity would benefit us, in the long run and maybe not even in the short term.

[E4 No More]

The problem with being either paranoid or obstinately nostalgic is that it causes stasis and leaves you with nothing better to do than to bitch about how things are, (or how they are NOT what you want them to be), rather than attempting to change the situation. You can't conceive of anything getting better so you immediately go to the negative to find fault in everything. Our rights already have been compromised and have been so for decades. The states don't grant us our rights; The U.S. Constitution does, and the states just signed off on them a couple hundred years ago. You will die in the natural order of things before you see our rights restored to how they were intended to be, and all the while you may be giving money to the NRA who will accept it readily into their coffers to make a good show of doing nothing.

When the states fail to uphold our rights it's up to the feds to step in and force them to uphold our rights, and it seems far easier now days to elect conservative legislators to do exactly that.