A Question re: National Reciprocity Act

[B2Tall]

A question for everyone, especially those who're eager to see the act become law:

How do you think the "May Issue" states will react should this bill become law???

I'm not asking what you want them to do, I'm asking what you believe they will do. My question also assumes that SCOTUS upholds the law (unlikely IMO but we'll pretend they do for the sake of this question) after the inevitible challenges. It seems to me these states have just 2 options.........

1. Swallow the pill and allow out-of-staters to carry
2. Become a "Right Denied" state like Illinois

Remember, IL is the only state that would be unaffected by this bill. It only applies to states that issue permits regardless of how easy or difficult it is to acquire one in a given state. IL issues no permits so CCW holders from other states would still not be permitted to carry in IL.

Does anyone really think that CA, NJ, HI, etc., are just going to roll over and die when it comes to this?? I believe their easiest and most effective option would be to mimic IL and deny everyone the right to carry (i.e. option #2) and thereby exclude themselves from the effects of this law. It may be difficult to get a permit in these states but even so, there are tens of thousands of private citizens who have managed to get a CCW in these places. All of those folks stand to lose their legal right to carry in those states. (Note to you Constitution-thumpers out there.....we're dealing with reality, not with how things should be in your constitutionally perfect world, so please don't respond with "2A already guarantees that right!")

It seems to me that option #1 would be a slippery slope for the states in question (to say nothing of the fact that they've fought tooth and nail to restrict firearms and aren't about to just shrug their shoulders and say "OK".). That leaves option #2 and in my opinion that's a setback for gun rights. We may very well go from one "Right Denied" state to a dozen or so.

 

[nogods]

I agree with your analysis.

I would prefer a federal law that simply prohibits states from prohibiting concealed or open carry by people who qualify for gun possession under existing federal law. It makes no sense to me to be allowing the states to trump each other with federal law.

I can't understand the strategy of the sponsors of this bill. Anti-gun states won't be persuaded to vote for it because they don't want non-residents carrying firearms. So we might as well let them vote against a federal right to carry for everyone bill.

 

[Caribou]

I think that for the most part they will roll over and accept it. Some will still arrest people for CC but after a few law suits they will fall in line. It is possible that one or two might be able to quit issuing CC permits. HI is really the only one that I think might possibly pull it off due to the extremely small number of permits. Gun ownership and CC permits are at an all time high. Any politician trying to fight the tide of self defense might well pay for it at the voting booth. Even in CA some counties are issuing as if CA was a shall issue State. There are too many of us now and more every day. I was talking to a guy from IL a few weeks ago and he assured me that it was only a small, but highly populated, area of the State that was antigun. If, as I believe, this is the right thing to do then let us move forward without fear of retaliation. The laws as they stand today are costing lives.

NYC and all its bloomers are going to have a fit but that is of little concern to me. In fact NYC arresting hundreds of honest people a year is a major argument for passage of this bill.

 

[B2Tall]

Any politician trying to fight the tide of self defense might well pay for it at the voting booth.

Unless you're a politician in IL, NJ, HI, MA, CT, MD, DE, RI, CA, and NY. There are a lot of pols in those states who're outspoken anti-gunners and their constituents keep them in office. Apparently they have nothing to fear by voting against carrying.

 

[rjefmiller]

Since the SAF/Wollard just had a successful ruling that Maryland's "good and substantial cause" for issuance of a permit is in violation of the Second Amendment, essentially making it a Shall Issue state, They are going to have a tough time becoming a "right denied" state. Therefore, I'm going with number 1, they will accept it. There will be much hand wringing and whining but they and the others will have to fold.

 

[B2Tall]

Since the SAF/Wollard just had a successful ruling that Maryland's "good and substantial cause" for issuance of a permit is in violation of the Second Amendment, essentially making it a Shall Issue state, They are going to have a tough time becoming a "right denied" state. Therefore, I'm going with number 1, they will accept it. There will be much hand wringing and whining but they and the others will have to fold.

Good point but with regards to Wollard case, that wouldn't prevent a state from becoming "right denied". The judge basically told the state of MD that if they ARE going to issue permits, its citizens don't have to give a reason or show cause. It wouldn't affect MD's decision to stop issuing altogether if that's the route they choose. SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed IL's status as a "right denied" state. There's absolutely no reason to believe that they would stop any other state from doing the same.

I'm sure we haven't heard the last of that case as it seems destined to get bumped all the way up the ladder. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the judge's ruling is upheld. It'll have a domino effect one way or the other.

 

[CharonPDX]

It would not surprise me if one or two states (almost guaranteed Hawaii, since it's effectively no-issue right now anyway,) move to no-issue like IL as a result of this. Even though both CA and NY do not honor any out-of-state right now, they both have large enough rural populations (with local officials that treat their technically-may-issue system as shall-issue,) that I doubt either would have enough votes to move to no-issue completely. Probably a smaller state like NJ or one of the New England states would be the next-most-likely.

(To clarify, as the OP did: I don't want states to do this in reaction, but this is my guess as to what will happen.)

 

[B2Tall]

I agree with your analysis.

I would prefer a federal law that simply prohibits states from prohibiting concealed or open carry by people who qualify for gun possession under existing federal law. It makes no sense to me to be allowing the states to trump each other with federal law.

I can't understand the strategy of the sponsors of this bill. Anti-gun states won't be persuaded to vote for it because they don't want non-residents carrying firearms. So we might as well let them vote against a federal right to carry for everyone bill.

Years ago the Fed "forced" all 50 states to raise their respective drinking ages to 21. They did so by threatening to withold federal transportation money from any states that chose not to comply. Obviously it worked. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that in this case.

 

[santa]

I dont think any state would go 'no issue', but if any would it would probably be Hawaii which already is defacto 'no issue, and mabye New Jersey or Maryland. But the latter 2 states it is very difficult already to get a permit so as a practical matter it wont be any change for the average citizen. Not that I want it this way, but realistically.