TexasCHLforum.com

Seems to me that one side benefit to national Reciprocity will be that it will pressure states that make it difficult to get an LTC. States like New Jersey might have more folks packing from Pennsylvania in their state than the actual residents. .. This is going to put major pressure from the voters to give them equal rights to those of outa staters. More licensed people in the gun unfriendly states can only help our cause.

chuck j wrote:Keep the Federal government out of our business . They are already intrusive enough . The Feds will only make a mess of it . They can not be trusted .

National reciprocity sounds good but will backfire in the end . No faith on the Federal level .....none . Will come back to torment and bite you on the buttocks .

100% !!
We do not need the feds involved in states' reciprocity. This is a monumental mistake. Once they are waist deep in it they will only make the usual debacle of it and will forever have their hands in where, when and how we can carry, even in our own state. Do you really want the left helping to decide how to implement some type of national reciprocity? Come on people, think about way you are asking. You want the feds involved in this??

Like the great sage Pogo once said.

I'm with a few others here and 100% against Federal intrusion into States business, unless that Federal Intrusion is enforcing the United States Constitution's limits of itself and the States. If the State infringes a Constitutionally guranteed god given natural right, Federal correction should be mandatory and swift. It has been absent for decades and this is the fault of we huddled masses in many States.

The Federal Government needs to start doing its job of enforcing Constitutional limits placed on itself and the States. If the Federal Government had been operating under the limits of the Constitution and enforcing those limits from the start, I dont believe we would have an issue.

I could get behind a Federal Firearms Law that exempts any citizen from any State to be charged with any firearms crime in any State that is perfectly legal in ones home State. We can call it the National Firearms Immunity Act. This would throw most States into a tailspin.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

oohrah wrote:But, my opinion of your question - you have to obey the other state's trafffic laws, so you would have to obey the other state's carry laws.

This is a good analogy but the difference is that other states do not place onerous restrictions on your ability to drive in their state. Some states gun laws are the equivalent of restricting vehicles to a fuel tank of less than 1 gallon capacity, with a max speed of 10 miles per hour.

You make a very good point. CA has very restrictive vehicle emission standards, but I can visit CA in my non-CA made "pollution spewing" car (a little hyperbole here).

Liberty wrote:Seems to me that one side benefit to national Reciprocity will be that it will pressure states that make it difficult to get an LTC. States like New Jersey might have more folks packing from Pennsylvania in their state than the actual residents. .. This is going to put major pressure from the voters to give them equal rights to those of outa staters. More licensed people in the gun unfriendly states can only help our cause.

I think it's more likely that non-free states will just add to their already idiotic gun laws to make it even more difficult for anyone to comply, resident or not. You Texans want to carry in New Jersey? Well guess what, we'll only allow single shot .22's and you have to keep the bullet separate from the gun. Oh, and don't forget we don't have Stand Your Ground here - you have the duty to retreat.

What about states that require gun registration? Do you have to register your carry piece with New York before you can carry it while visiting your family in Syracuse?

You would almost have to do what was suggested above and have the feds set some minimal level of "gun freedom" that no state could exceed. Not only are the potential implications of that scary, it infuriates me that we've even let it get to this point from a 2nd Amendment perspective.

I'm very conflicted on this one. I understand the sentiment behind it but this opens doors that we may well regret we ever touched.

rbwhatever1 wrote:I'm with a few others here and 100% against Federal intrusion into States business, unless that Federal Intrusion is enforcing the United States Constitution's limits of itself and the States. If the State infringes a Constitutionally guranteed god given natural right, Federal correction should be mandatory and swift. It has been absent for decades and this is the fault of we huddled masses in many States.

The Federal Government needs to start doing its job of enforcing Constitutional limits placed on itself and the States. If the Federal Government had been operating under the limits of the Constitution and enforcing those limits from the start, I dont believe we would have an issue.

I could get behind a Federal Firearms Law that exempts any citizen from any State to be charged with any firearms crime in any State that is perfectly legal in ones home State. We can call it the National Firearms Immunity Act. This would throw most States into a tailspin.

This x 1000. We should have never let it get to this point. The courts need to just start striking down all this stuff en masse, like the left got them to do with that long enshrined and enumerated constitutional right to gay marriage.

jed wrote:

chuck j wrote:Keep the Federal government out of our business . They are already intrusive enough . The Feds will only make a mess of it . They can not be trusted .

National reciprocity sounds good but will backfire in the end . No faith on the Federal level .....none . Will come back to torment and bite you on the buttocks .

100% !!
We do not need the feds involved in states' reciprocity. This is a monumental mistake. Once they are waist deep in it they will only make the usual debacle of it and will forever have their hands in where, when and how we can carry, even in our own state. Do you really want the left helping to decide how to implement some type of national reciprocity? Come on people, think about way you are asking. You want the feds involved in this??

LEOSA passed 12 years ago and the feds have not regulated eligibility to be a peace officer, requirements for retaining a peace officer license, or where peace officers can and cannot carry their handguns. There are no federally-mandated peace officer courses for a police academy, no maximum/minimum rounds an officer may/must carry, no standardized firearms training or equipment requirements.

You ignore the fact that Congress doesn't need national reciprocity to pass gun laws; they have been doing it since at least 1934. Other major pieces of gun legislation was passed in 1968, 1986, and 1994. The slippery slope argument doesn't fly -- the feds are already at the bottom of the hill.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jed wrote:

chuck j wrote:Keep the Federal government out of our business . They are already intrusive enough . The Feds will only make a mess of it . They can not be trusted .

National reciprocity sounds good but will backfire in the end . No faith on the Federal level .....none . Will come back to torment and bite you on the buttocks .

100% !!
We do not need the feds involved in states' reciprocity. This is a monumental mistake. Once they are waist deep in it they will only make the usual debacle of it and will forever have their hands in where, when and how we can carry, even in our own state. Do you really want the left helping to decide how to implement some type of national reciprocity? Come on people, think about way you are asking. You want the feds involved in this??

LEOSA passed 12 years ago and the feds have not regulated eligibility to be a peace officer, requirements for retaining a peace officer license, or where peace officers can and cannot carry their handguns. There are no federally-mandated peace officer courses for a police academy, no maximum/minimum rounds an officer may/must carry, no standardized firearms training or equipment requirements.

You ignore the fact that Congress doesn't need national reciprocity to pass gun laws; they have been doing it since at least 1934. Other major pieces of gun legislation was passed in 1968, 1986, and 1994. The slippery slope argument doesn't fly -- the feds are already at the bottom of the hill.

Chas.

The bottom of the hill analogy to the slippery slope is spot on and I'm stealing it!

Also, just because someone has a different opinion on a matter doesn't mean they do not think. Maybe the one that thinks that is using faulty logic.

OK, everybody has made their speeches, so what is a/the plan?

I am all for anything which would allow my CHL/LTC to be valid in all 50 states. Many have compared this subject to states recognizing a driver's license issued by another state. Expanding on that comparison, take a look at commercial driver's licenses, CDL. I have a Texas CDL. Although I don't drive a truck for a living any more, I maintain my qualifications just in case.

I remember way back when truck drivers had CDL's from several different states. Of course it was to keep the speeding tickets off of one DL and on another, and not because the other states only recognized their own CDL. Anyway, my point is this all went away with the standardization of CHL license testing requirements and a common database of traffic violations. Driving isn't a Constitutional right, and certainly not operating a truck, but the standardization of licensing requirements does have some commonality with some of the objections to reciprocity.

I have a son who lives in Connecticut (they don't build submarines in Texas) where they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. He was able to get a Connecticut CHL, but what he had to go through to get it was absurd. No range test was required. No written test was required. There was a background check, a tax to be paid, a waiting period, and two trips to the state capitol to fill out paper work. Yes, he HAD to go twice, for two different reasons. They wouldn't allow it to all be done at the same time. Vastly different requirements than Texas, and there are many other states with vastly different requirements. And then you have Vermont where no license is issued, and none is required.

My point? Most states don't want the federal government messing in affairs they see as the prerogative of the states. And with licensing requirements all over the board, and in some cases absent, There will be a lot of push back fro liberal states and scrambling to change the rules in their favor. The worst thing that could happen with the reciprocity effort is something like the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations pertaining to safe carrying of firearms on a national level. The best thing that could happen is for all states to honor other states CHL's, and not require a CHL for residents of states that allow constitutional carry.

Can reciprocity have a good outcome? Yes. Do I trust Congress or federal agencies to not mess it up? No.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jed wrote:

chuck j wrote:Keep the Federal government out of our business . They are already intrusive enough . The Feds will only make a mess of it . They can not be trusted .

National reciprocity sounds good but will backfire in the end . No faith on the Federal level .....none . Will come back to torment and bite you on the buttocks .

100% !!
We do not need the feds involved in states' reciprocity. This is a monumental mistake. Once they are waist deep in it they will only make the usual debacle of it and will forever have their hands in where, when and how we can carry, even in our own state. Do you really want the left helping to decide how to implement some type of national reciprocity? Come on people, think about way you are asking. You want the feds involved in this??

LEOSA passed 12 years ago and the feds have not regulated eligibility to be a peace officer, requirements for retaining a peace officer license, or where peace officers can and cannot carry their handguns. There are no federally-mandated peace officer courses for a police academy, no maximum/minimum rounds an officer may/must carry, no standardized firearms training or equipment requirements.

You ignore the fact that Congress doesn't need national reciprocity to pass gun laws; they have been doing it since at least 1934. Other major pieces of gun legislation was passed in 1968, 1986, and 1994. The slippery slope argument doesn't fly -- the feds are already at the bottom of the hill.

Chas.

I don't know....everytime I think they're at the bottom, they seem to find more hill.

The feds have an agenda . Not paranoid ...just study what has come before , common sense . Trump is next pres up . Yea...what does that mean ? We are looking for someone to right things but I will hold with reservation to see what that comes to . Maybe/maybe not . I would like to see the Feds cold shouldered out of Texas affairs . Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Texas first , our children first , our family first , our state first . We can mind OUR and our family's lives . I have been proud of Abbot and the ones keeping us INDEPENDANT .

Lynyrd wrote:I am all for anything which would allow my CHL/LTC to be valid in all 50 states. Many have compared this subject to states recognizing a driver's license issued by another state. Expanding on that comparison, take a look at commercial driver's licenses, CDL. I have a Texas CDL. Although I don't drive a truck for a living any more, I maintain my qualifications just in case.

I remember way back when truck drivers had CDL's from several different states. Of course it was to keep the speeding tickets off of one DL and on another, and not because the other states only recognized their own CDL. Anyway, my point is this all went away with the standardization of CHL license testing requirements and a common database of traffic violations. Driving isn't a Constitutional right, and certainly not operating a truck, but the standardization of licensing requirements does have some commonality with some of the objections to reciprocity.

I have a son who lives in Connecticut (they don't build submarines in Texas) where they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. He was able to get a Connecticut CHL, but what he had to go through to get it was absurd. No range test was required. No written test was required. There was a background check, a tax to be paid, a waiting period, and two trips to the state capitol to fill out paper work. Yes, he HAD to go twice, for two different reasons. They wouldn't allow it to all be done at the same time. Vastly different requirements than Texas, and there are many other states with vastly different requirements. And then you have Vermont where no license is issued, and none is required.

My point? Most states don't want the federal government messing in affairs they see as the prerogative of the states. And with licensing requirements all over the board, and in some cases absent, There will be a lot of push back fro liberal states and scrambling to change the rules in their favor. The worst thing that could happen with the reciprocity effort is something like the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations pertaining to safe carrying of firearms on a national level. The best thing that could happen is for all states to honor other states CHL's, and not require a CHL for residents of states that allow constitutional carry.

Can reciprocity have a good outcome? Yes. Do I trust Congress or federal agencies to not mess it up? No.

Weird. I got a CT State Revolver & Pistol License completely through the mail, and have renewed it twice...but I live in Texas.