60 Minutes Piece on National Reciprocity

[Garufa]

60 Mintues just finished a new segment on carry reciprocity.  Only caught a couple of minutes of it so have no opinion on the piece itself (I do on the premise), just enough to see some hand-wringing from Steve Kroft and our other “betters”.

Edit:  I may have dropped this in the wrong place.  It probably belongs in “Handgun Carry and Self Defense”.  My bad.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Garufa

[RED333]

Found the show

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/

What little bit I did watch it is left driven, go figure.

Edited February 12, 2018 by RED333
Because I can

[Chucktshoes]

9 minutes ago, Garufa said:

 

Edit:  I may have dropped this in the wrong place.  It probably belongs in “Handgun Carry and Self Defense”.  My bad.

No worries. Fixed. I’ll check out the segment, though I doubt they’ll have the same issues with it I do. 

[Chucktshoes]

Yep just as I figured. Their problems with it aren’t my problems with it. Their problems are mainly drivel. 

[bigun]

I watched this last night. Besides being driven from the left I felt they were trying to alert everyone that hey this thing may get passed. You know not everyone keeps up with what is going on in the world. And they kept saying how the police were against it. Maybe just the leaders from large cities that play politics.

[Grunt67]

When you watch 60 Minutes, you're going to get a heavy dose of Liberal. I never watch the junk.

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, bigun said:

I watched this last night. Besides being driven from the left I felt they were trying to alert everyone that hey this thing may get passed. You know not everyone keeps up with what is going on in the world. And they kept saying how the police were against it. Maybe just the leaders from large cities that play politics.

Bingo!

[SWCUMBERLAND]

32 minutes ago, Grunt67 said:

When you watch 60 Minutes, you're going to get a heavy dose of Liberal. I never watch the junk.

Pretty much. I didn't mind it so much back when, when the late Mike Wallace and the late Morley Safer were there. Always seemed to me that Safer looked to be older, although Wallace was some 13 years senior.  

Full reciprocity is gonna chuck a bunch of confusion into non-gunstore retail stores that sell firearms. As an example, my former employer, Walmart, in Nevada cannot sell firearms to anyone but Nevadans, Idahoans, Utahns, and Oregonians. (California was offered; they turned it down.) One of the ways to expedite the process of having to call BATF for a back-ground check, at least for Nevadans, is to have a concealed weapons permit. The CCW check, paperwork, classes and such that they go thru meets or exceeds that of a standard background check, or so's the assumption. National reciprocity would tear all that down, or so I see it, widening sales here in Las Vegas for sure, as a lot of tourists have wanted to buy, but were unable to owing to the above stricture.

 

National reciprocity is NOT without some sharp edges. But overall, I think the good it could do outweighs the bad. 

(climbing into fireproof suit for rebuttals)

 

SWC 

[JAB]

29 minutes ago, SWCUMBERLAND said:

Pretty much. I didn't mind it so much back when, when the late Mike Wallace and the late Morley Safer were there. Always seemed to me that Safer looked to be older, although Wallace was some 13 years senior.  

Full reciprocity is gonna chuck a bunch of confusion into non-gunstore retail stores that sell firearms. As an example, my former employer, Walmart, in Nevada cannot sell firearms to anyone but Nevadans, Idahoans, Utahns, and Oregonians. (California was offered; they turned it down.) One of the ways to expedite the process of having to call BATF for a back-ground check, at least for Nevadans, is to have a concealed weapons permit. The CCW check, paperwork, classes and such that they go thru meets or exceeds that of a standard background check, or so's the assumption. National reciprocity would tear all that down, or so I see it, widening sales here in Las Vegas for sure, as a lot of tourists have wanted to buy, but were unable to owing to the above stricture.

 

National reciprocity is NOT without some sharp edges. But overall, I think the good it could do outweighs the bad. 

(climbing into fireproof suit for rebuttals)

 

SWC 

No flaming from me, just an opposing viewpoint.  Personally, I believe that having the Feds occupy a field that has, until now, been mostly a state decided issue will never, ever be a good thing - no matter the issue.  The Fed is already overgrown and bloated - I don't believe we need to be supporting the idea of it getting even bigger and even more involved in such things even if it appears to benefit us, at least in the short term.  A Fed that can tell all states that they must allow carry can, when the wind blows another direction, tell all states that they can no longer allow carry - or that they have to meet California, New York and Illinois 'standards' in order to do so, that they can only authorize people to carry handguns that are on the California approved list, etc.  Think I am being paranoid?  Ask yourself who the Fed and the EPA look to when they want to put new regulations in place.  It ain't lower Alabama.  It tends to be California.  I believe it would be no different when it came to Federal carry regulation.  No, thanks.  I'd rather avoid those states where I can't currently legally carry or, worst case, deal with not being able to carry while I am there.

Edited February 12, 2018 by JAB

[Chucktshoes]

31 minutes ago, JAB said:

No flaming from me, just an opposing viewpoint.  Personally, I believe that having the Feds occupy a field that has, until now, been mostly a state decided issue will never, ever be a good thing - no matter the issue.  The Fed is already overgrown and bloated - I don't believe we need to be supporting the idea of it getting even bigger and even more involved in such things even if it appears to benefit us, at least in the short term.  A Fed that can tell all states that they must allow carry can, when the wind blows another direction, tell all states that they can no longer allow carry - or that they have to meet California, New York and Illinois 'standards' in order to do so, that they can only authorize people to carry handguns that are on the California approved list, etc.  Think I am being paranoid?  Ask yourself who the Fed and the EPA look to when they want to put new regulations in place.  It ain't lower Alabama.  It tends to be California.  I believe it would be no different when it came to Federal carry regulation.  No, thanks.  I'd rather avoid those states where I can't currently legally carry or, worst case, deal with not being able to carry while I am there.

This is the same problem I have with the idea of fed gov mandated national reciprocity.  If you give the Feds control of carry, you’re not going to like where it leads.  It ain’t the camel’s nose getting up under the tent, but a different and much less pleasant appendage entirely. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Chucktshoes

[chances R]

While those of us that carry routinely, certainly favorable.  But as others have said, Federal interference can come back and bite us all.  I see it as a State issue.  Unfortunately the libs control some States.  Analogous to posting of businesses; except the entire state is posted.  If a state sees it that way so be it. 

[SWCUMBERLAND]

Coming up with fifty delegations to hammer out a common CCW, independent of the Feds and not subject to changes from republic to statist, would be nice. The federal House and Senate would have screaming fits.

 

SWC

[Grunt67]

Speaking strictly for myself.....I would prefer the Feds keep their collective noses out of this issue. What may be ok during this administration,

may very well head south if the Libs take control again.

All the states I may visit are not an issue ( I don't visit all ).  The Califs, Ill, NY, I stay clear.

JMHO

[Chucktshoes]

I’ve visited all 48 contiguous since I started driving and keeping abreast of the ins and outs of each state is far more tolerable than the risk of getting the option to carry closed out altogether. 

[m16ty]

10 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

This is the same problem I have with the idea of fed gov mandated national reciprocity.  If you give the Feds control of carry, you’re not going to like where it leads.  It ain’t the camel’s nose getting up under the tent, but a different and much less pleasant appendage entirely. 

Very true. This is why I am against it and pray it doesn't pass.

State's rights are all but gone already, I'm not ready to hand the feds more power over the states. 

Right now, TN HCP law has some bad things in it but it's not nearly bad as some states. After this national reciprocity gets ironed out, I could see our right to carry in TN greatly restricted over what we have now. While I don't open carry, I like the fact that if somebody happens to see my gun, I don't risk being charged.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I hope it does not pass. The biggest reason is once it is law they can change the rules or definitions to hurt those who they feel should be hurt. 

We see definitions being changed, often on a whim, making law abiding people into criminals overnight. And the worst part is we can’t vote out those responsible. 

It will be used to control, not give more freedom. I promise. 

[SWCUMBERLAND]

I'll admit to being miffed at being the dull knife in the drawer for not seeing it in its original form.

However, two questions arise.

Why didn't BHO, in the very first part of his regime, when he held a super majority in the legislature, ram this down our throats then, if this is so prone to abuse?

I also pointed out that if the several states' legislature got together and hammered out a reciprocity package that wasn't on the federal level, the federal legislature would be upset, as it would be taking something to the state level  instead of their (/sarc) wiser and better (/sarc) hands. The question arises, though, would a states-driven universal carry law package not  be prone to the self-same dangers that these able folks above have noted?

Honest so help me, I NEVER understood why some clever bunch, like the NRA, long ago didn't go after all these laws in a bundle and drop them in front of the Supremes, and say  "What part of 'shall not be abridged' did these laws' makers not get?" Back when the High Court was a court, and not made into the obvious political football and rest home for activist jurists.

So... I was in error for backing this... fine, fine, been wrong before, will be wrong again.

Aside from

- researching the web of individual state laws on the subject, which appears to be the status quo,

- a Federal-run universal plan (drowned in a general and legitimate shout of NAY),

- the High Court  issuing  a omnibus nullification on Constitutional grounds (extremely unlikely),

is there some other remedy?

 

SWC

[Dolomite_supafly]

If BHO passed it then his followers would VIEW it as bad. That is why he waited for the Republican leaders to pass it. Then the next time we have a Democrat controlled government it will be used to harm conservatives. Our "leaders" cannot foresee or do not care how the reciprocity will be used by our enemies in government. If we give the federal government control over ANYTHING they will abuse it and use it to gain more control over the populace. National reciprocity will be used to grief gun owners but most gun owners are too worried about NOW to worry about the future.

The NRA has no interest in putting ANYTHING gun related to rest. They have become a money driven organization and when there is turmoil or uneasiness in the gun community it generates profits. They could easily end the bump stock ban but they instead asked for it because they know they can use the turmoil to increase profits. Remember they called for the ban but have now said they would oppose it but need more money to fight it. If we do not send in our donations they will let it pass. 

Time and time again the NRA support turmoil because it increases profits and refuse to get involved with things that could actually help us. Their desires are not in helping gun owners, it is in increasing profits while risking our gun rights.

We have a super majority in Washington and yet we cannot get a single piece of pro conservative or pro gun legislation passed. We cannot even get anything repealed to help gun owners. The reason why is our "conservatives" in Washington are the other side of the liberal coin. Regardless of which party is in power they will continue to pass laws to make more and more of us criminals because once you are a criminal they can control every aspect of your life. We are not free, we are told we are but we are being controlled by the government in every single aspect of our lives. There is not too many things one can do now that doesn't require approval from our government or risk becoming a criminal. We do not have free elections, we are not free to do what we want and we are not free to say what we want. Our privacy is long gone and the majority of the Amendments of the Constitution are violated daily by those in Government yet we continue to believe we are free because we are told we are free.

[SWCUMBERLAND]

I didn't mean to get you all worked up, sir. I merely asked if there is a remedy to the problem of multiple stats' CCW laws being unified into a simpler universal whole, without the remedy being worse than the problem, as appears to be the case if the Feds run it.

SWC

 

[Chucktshoes]

Quick answer is no. The only avenue is to have SCOTUS declare the carry of firearms outside of the home as a right and incorporate that against the states. 

[SWCUMBERLAND]

25 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Quick answer is no. The only avenue is to have SCOTUS declare the carry of firearms outside of the home as a right and incorporate that against the states. 

Might have been possible before the hard left politicization of the High Court under Jimmeh, Fat Bill and BHO. I fear your quick answer is the correct one.

 

Dammit.

 

SWC

[gregintenn]

If I could write the bill, I'd be for it. Since I can't, and I have zero trust for those who can, I'm firmly against the idea.

[Dolomite_supafly]

1 hour ago, SWCUMBERLAND said:

I didn't mean to get you all worked up, sir. I merely asked if there is a remedy to the problem of multiple stats' CCW laws being unified into a simpler universal whole, without the remedy being worse than the problem, as appears to be the case if the Feds run it.

SWC

 

Not worked up at all but national reciprocity will not fix anything. I can guarantee that if it were passed you would still be arrested, thrown in jail and have to fight it in court in states that will refuse to recognize it. Yes, you will be found not guilty, eventually, but by the time that has happened it will have cost you thousands of dollars and probably some of your property as well as your freedom.

Think it won't happen? Look at Safe Passage Provision under the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA). Legally speaking, if you are just passing through a state you cannot be arrested for having a gun that is against that state's laws if the gun is legal in your home state. But we see it all the time where someone is just passing through gets stopped and arrested. Even having a firearm in your checked baggage when flying can lead to your arrest because some states refuse to accept the provisions of the FOPA. We have states who admit they intentionally target cars with plates from gun friendly states so they can pull them over to look for guns.

So if national reciprocity ever does pass you will have a defense from prosecution but that is not a defense from being arrested, thrown in jail or having you life financially ruined by an overzealous state. Don't forget the wording only allows CONCEALED carry in another state. It also doesn't permit you to carry on state or local government property unless the state allows you to. Who owns roadways or highways? And because it will not change a single thing why let the government interject themselves into another part of our lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#.22Safe_Passage.22_provision

[Oh Shoot]

2 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

Quick answer is no. The only avenue is to have SCOTUS declare the carry of firearms outside of the home as a right and incorporate that against the states. 

It could come to that type of decision I suppose, as 6-10 states would file suit immediately if it were actually passed.

- OS

[m16ty]

Technically, if your firearm originates in the state of TN, and you never take it out of state, the feds have no authority over it. The fact is though, the states allow the feds to enforce their gun laws within the state.

One of the main ways the Feds take power from the States is in the name of "interstate commerce". The feds claim (and I think has been upheld by the SCOTUS) that anything that crosses state lines is subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause. The other way they do it is by bribes, in the form of federal funds. The "bribes" even work their way down to the individual level. Feds pay states to do what they want, States pay counties and cities to do what they want, and even most individuals can get money from the Fed, State, and county or city level, as long as you do what they want you to do.