I think a a legal restriction on carrying is an immoral law. But what I don’t like about national reciprocity is that flies in the face of federalism. The national government simply does not have the authority to bind one state’s laws to another in such a way.
People often compare concealed weapons carry to having a driver’s license, but this comparison does not make sense. Trying to force gun laws to fit the same model as driver’s licenses is unnecessary and does not apply.
The United States Constitution is the highest law of the land and has always been used to protect individual rights. States must follow federal law and court decisions about the other eight personal rights amendments. It is long overdue for states to do the same for the Second Amendment.
I think it is appropriate/overdue for Congress to enforce the Constitution — a document which all federal/state/local elected officials, judges, and bureaucrats agree to defend
Think someone left out something here…(21.5 concealed handgun permit holders…)
“Much of the gun-control debate centers on hypothetical risks,” Lott said. “With reciprocity, however, we don’t have to speculate. With 21.5 concealed handgun permit holders in the United States, we already know how they behave. In addition, most Americans already benefit from reciprocity.”
Suppose the Seattle Center was not declared a “gun free” zone, which it clearly wasn’t, and responsible, law abiding, and trained citizens were present. Would the attacker even dare to act knowing that he could face swift and certain reaction to himself if he tried?
I have reason to believe that there are more than 21.5 people in the US with concealed carry permits. Is there by chance a missing million there?
There are some state laws it’s advisable to be aware of. I recently learned that if you’re lawfully carrying in North Carolina and are stopped by LE, you are required to immediately notify the officer you’re licensed to carry. Please word it like that, “I’ve got a gun” isn’t a suggested way to do that. Best to check other states laws before you travel through.
In my view there are several problems with national reciprocity. The state to state reciprocity laws will fade away leaving only the federal reciprocity law in place. The next time the country has a liberal majority in congress they will start adding amendments and restrictions to the national reciprocity law. When that happens the country will end up with a distorted national reciprocity law that only allows something like single shot pistols with a caliber with less than 22.
Born in 1950, I grew up in the Chicago area. When I was but a wee lad, mom took me along to major department stores downtown. I recall a restroom area with signs over side-by-side drinking fountains. I asked, “Mama, what is that?”. She read the signs to me, “Whites Only” & “Coloreds”. When I asked why, she said she didn’t know and meant it. I suspect similar motivation behind so-called “gun-free zones”, etc.; support of irrational fear. The 2nd Amendment is the only reciprocity we need.
A point I haven’t read yet is why have bearable arms restrictions in the first place? Law abiding citizens, who are the only people who pay attention to them anyway, are not the problem. Homicidal violent sociopaths are. If we start removing them from society to a US version of gulag, others who may be tempted toward violence will realize the risk is not worth the reward.
The rest of us would simply enjoy the peace of mind knowing we can defend ourselves against those who don’t get the message without risking prison ourselves by violating some arcane malum prohibitum law that may not be apparent to most people.
The dispute over National Reciprocity originates from the different views people have regarding the carrying of firearms for self-defense.
States issues a multitude of license types. Some of these licenses are considered so basic, so necessary to the human condition that they must be respected universally. For example:
Marriage License – The right to marry and have a life partner is so basic to the human condition that it becomes a human right. So, marriage licenses have national reciprocity because the union of two people is so basic that it must be respected nationwide. Given the importance of a marriage, one cannot divorce one’s spouse simply by moving across a state line.
Driver’s License – The right to freedom of travel, to move to meet one’s life goals, is also basic to the human condition. Since the automobile is the prime mode of travel (and has been so for more than a century), the driver’s license is also considered to have national reciprocity.
However, lesser activities (especially locally controlled ones) are not considered to be basic to the human condition. For example:
Hunting / Fishing licenses – During our hunter-gatherer pre-history, these activities were basic to the human condition. Nowadays, they are not. Our food mostly comes from the grocery store, today, rather than by hunting-gathering. Game populations must be managed using local (State-level) controls. Therefore, these licenses are issued on a State-by-State basis. They do not (and should not) have national reciprocity.
Business licenses – While earning a livelihood is pretty basic to the human condition, it is still reasonable to control these licenses at the State level. One would see little benefit from something like a National Barber’s license, for example.
The firearm-prohibitionist mindset is against concealed carry on general principles. Certainly, they do not view it as basic to the human condition or as a human right. So, people with the prohibition mindset want local (State Level) controls on concealed carry (if it is permitted at all). So, a prohibitionist will argue that a concealed carry license should be grouped with hunting, fishing, professional/business, etc. licenses and limited to State-by-State control. They adamantly oppose even the concept of a national concealed handgun carry license.
Other people argue that self-defense is the MOST BASIC human right (it is a natural right, since it is not limited to just humans). As such, it is a core part of the human condition (like the rights of marriage or free-travel). Thus, under this view, it must have national reciprocity. Indeed, under this view, a Federal Law should not even be necessary. National reciprocity should flow directly from the 2nd Amendment and the “Full Faith and Credit” clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Sadly, that has not been the view of the courts hence, the forced necessity to drafting a National Reciprocity Carry Law to obtain that which should be a given.
So, like so many things in our modern, divided World, this dispute comes from disparate Worldviews. It comes from having two groups of people who look at the World and see separate pictures of reality.
I, of course, am in the camp that views self-defense as a basic human right.
Quote of the Day:
“Article 3 – Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.” – From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
P.S. – It is an outrage that nobody takes Article 3 literally, especially with regard to the tools (firearms) necessary to obtain “security of person”.
Yes, I was born and have lived my entire life within the Volunteer State. As for the article, yes, I am the author as the small number of “typo’s” bears witness. 🙂
I am afraid that I seem incapable of writing a long comment without one or two of those pesky “typo’s” sneaking into it. I am glad that you liked my comment, above. You are free to use it if you wish. You may want to edit out the mistakes before doing so. 🙂
I’d be happy with just mandating that states not restrict non-resident carry licensing more strictly than they do resident licenses.
See for example Illinois, which will only issue a non-resident LTC to citizens from a small number of states.
Or Oregon, who by law will only consider* issuing a non-resident CHL** to applicants from contiguous neighboring states — i.e. states it shares a border with. That means only Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California residents qualify for a non-resident CHL.
Oregon also does not recognize ANY other states’ CCW licenses (not by law, by policy; statute gives Oregon’s Secretary of State the authority to grant reciprocity to states with similar CCW requirements, but it’s been decades since there’s been a pro-2A Sec. of State, so there’s no reciprocity), so there is no legal route for travelers from other states — other than those listed above — to carry concealed in Oregon.
———
* – Resident applications are “shall-issue,” but non-resident applications are “may-issue.”
** – Concealed Handgun License
I think a a legal restriction on carrying is an immoral law. But what I don’t like about national reciprocity is that flies in the face of federalism. The national government simply does not have the authority to bind one state’s laws to another in such a way.
👍 It also puts at risk of Congress forcing a national standard
People often compare concealed weapons carry to having a driver’s license, but this comparison does not make sense. Trying to force gun laws to fit the same model as driver’s licenses is unnecessary and does not apply.
The United States Constitution is the highest law of the land and has always been used to protect individual rights. States must follow federal law and court decisions about the other eight personal rights amendments. It is long overdue for states to do the same for the Second Amendment.
I think it is appropriate/overdue for Congress to enforce the Constitution — a document which all federal/state/local elected officials, judges, and bureaucrats agree to defend
Think someone left out something here…(21.5 concealed handgun permit holders…)
“Much of the gun-control debate centers on hypothetical risks,” Lott said. “With reciprocity, however, we don’t have to speculate. With 21.5 concealed handgun permit holders in the United States, we already know how they behave. In addition, most Americans already benefit from reciprocity.”
Suppose the Seattle Center was not declared a “gun free” zone, which it clearly wasn’t, and responsible, law abiding, and trained citizens were present. Would the attacker even dare to act knowing that he could face swift and certain reaction to himself if he tried?
I have reason to believe that there are more than 21.5 people in the US with concealed carry permits. Is there by chance a missing million there?
There are some state laws it’s advisable to be aware of. I recently learned that if you’re lawfully carrying in North Carolina and are stopped by LE, you are required to immediately notify the officer you’re licensed to carry. Please word it like that, “I’ve got a gun” isn’t a suggested way to do that. Best to check other states laws before you travel through.
In my view there are several problems with national reciprocity. The state to state reciprocity laws will fade away leaving only the federal reciprocity law in place. The next time the country has a liberal majority in congress they will start adding amendments and restrictions to the national reciprocity law. When that happens the country will end up with a distorted national reciprocity law that only allows something like single shot pistols with a caliber with less than 22.
Born in 1950, I grew up in the Chicago area. When I was but a wee lad, mom took me along to major department stores downtown. I recall a restroom area with signs over side-by-side drinking fountains. I asked, “Mama, what is that?”. She read the signs to me, “Whites Only” & “Coloreds”. When I asked why, she said she didn’t know and meant it. I suspect similar motivation behind so-called “gun-free zones”, etc.; support of irrational fear. The 2nd Amendment is the only reciprocity we need.
A point I haven’t read yet is why have bearable arms restrictions in the first place? Law abiding citizens, who are the only people who pay attention to them anyway, are not the problem. Homicidal violent sociopaths are. If we start removing them from society to a US version of gulag, others who may be tempted toward violence will realize the risk is not worth the reward.
The rest of us would simply enjoy the peace of mind knowing we can defend ourselves against those who don’t get the message without risking prison ourselves by violating some arcane malum prohibitum law that may not be apparent to most people.
The dispute over National Reciprocity originates from the different views people have regarding the carrying of firearms for self-defense.
States issues a multitude of license types. Some of these licenses are considered so basic, so necessary to the human condition that they must be respected universally. For example:
Marriage License – The right to marry and have a life partner is so basic to the human condition that it becomes a human right. So, marriage licenses have national reciprocity because the union of two people is so basic that it must be respected nationwide. Given the importance of a marriage, one cannot divorce one’s spouse simply by moving across a state line.
Driver’s License – The right to freedom of travel, to move to meet one’s life goals, is also basic to the human condition. Since the automobile is the prime mode of travel (and has been so for more than a century), the driver’s license is also considered to have national reciprocity.
However, lesser activities (especially locally controlled ones) are not considered to be basic to the human condition. For example:
Hunting / Fishing licenses – During our hunter-gatherer pre-history, these activities were basic to the human condition. Nowadays, they are not. Our food mostly comes from the grocery store, today, rather than by hunting-gathering. Game populations must be managed using local (State-level) controls. Therefore, these licenses are issued on a State-by-State basis. They do not (and should not) have national reciprocity.
Business licenses – While earning a livelihood is pretty basic to the human condition, it is still reasonable to control these licenses at the State level. One would see little benefit from something like a National Barber’s license, for example.
The firearm-prohibitionist mindset is against concealed carry on general principles. Certainly, they do not view it as basic to the human condition or as a human right. So, people with the prohibition mindset want local (State Level) controls on concealed carry (if it is permitted at all). So, a prohibitionist will argue that a concealed carry license should be grouped with hunting, fishing, professional/business, etc. licenses and limited to State-by-State control. They adamantly oppose even the concept of a national concealed handgun carry license.
Other people argue that self-defense is the MOST BASIC human right (it is a natural right, since it is not limited to just humans). As such, it is a core part of the human condition (like the rights of marriage or free-travel). Thus, under this view, it must have national reciprocity. Indeed, under this view, a Federal Law should not even be necessary. National reciprocity should flow directly from the 2nd Amendment and the “Full Faith and Credit” clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Sadly, that has not been the view of the courts hence, the forced necessity to drafting a National Reciprocity Carry Law to obtain that which should be a given.
So, like so many things in our modern, divided World, this dispute comes from disparate Worldviews. It comes from having two groups of people who look at the World and see separate pictures of reality.
I, of course, am in the camp that views self-defense as a basic human right.
Quote of the Day:
“Article 3 – Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.” – From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
P.S. – It is an outrage that nobody takes Article 3 literally, especially with regard to the tools (firearms) necessary to obtain “security of person”.
In regard to your wonderful essay, might one presume that your “name” may, very appropriately, indicate Volunteer State residence?😉
Congratulations on a narrative that I find not only credible, but logical, and difficult to contest.
Kudos if you authored it.👍Thanks for sharing, even if you stole it.
That said, I am absolutely stealing it from you.😁
Yes, I was born and have lived my entire life within the Volunteer State. As for the article, yes, I am the author as the small number of “typo’s” bears witness. 🙂
I am afraid that I seem incapable of writing a long comment without one or two of those pesky “typo’s” sneaking into it. I am glad that you liked my comment, above. You are free to use it if you wish. You may want to edit out the mistakes before doing so. 🙂
I’d be happy with just mandating that states not restrict non-resident carry licensing more strictly than they do resident licenses.
See for example Illinois, which will only issue a non-resident LTC to citizens from a small number of states.
Or Oregon, who by law will only consider* issuing a non-resident CHL** to applicants from contiguous neighboring states — i.e. states it shares a border with. That means only Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California residents qualify for a non-resident CHL.
Oregon also does not recognize ANY other states’ CCW licenses (not by law, by policy; statute gives Oregon’s Secretary of State the authority to grant reciprocity to states with similar CCW requirements, but it’s been decades since there’s been a pro-2A Sec. of State, so there’s no reciprocity), so there is no legal route for travelers from other states — other than those listed above — to carry concealed in Oregon.
———
* – Resident applications are “shall-issue,” but non-resident applications are “may-issue.”
** – Concealed Handgun License