Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

National reciprocity flag flies again—should gun owners salute?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    National reciprocity flag flies again—should gun owners salute?

    National reciprocity flag flies again—should gun owners salute?

    The NRA and Gun Owners of America (GOA) are standing on the same side of the fence in support of national reciprocity for concealed carry permits. Meanwhile another advocacy group, National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), has issued strong statements against any form of national reciprocity.

    How can these groups be so divided when all purport to stand for the Second Amendment? Which stance is the right one?

    NRA and GOA point out what to some is probably not obvious—people with concealment permits have undergone a background check to get it. Weeded out are illegal aliens, past felons, addicts whose vices have landed them crossways with the law, people whose mental problems have led them to stand before a judge, and in many states, even older people who incurred a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence before they were old enough to drink legally.

    These same groups liken national reciprocity to a driver’s license from any state, which allows possessors to travel freely across state lines. It’s an appealing argument, sensible on the surface.

    Current concealed handgun licensure (CHL) laws are similar to a 50-piece quilt pieced together with no regard for matching anything. Some states, like Vermont and West Virginia, have permitless carry, meaning any resident of those states may carry concealed without a permit. Others, like Pennsylvania, require a fee and a background check only. Many states, Utah and Texas being among them, require training, though standards vary widely.

    A live fire test may or may not be required. The most restrictive states, i.e. Maryland and California, require residents to prove their need for a permit, as if protecting oneself from violent crime is a privilege.

    Once a permit is issued, those who would carry must be aware of the unique laws pertaining to the act of carrying in each state. Some states require drivers to inform police of their carry status on a traffic stop; others don’t. Some ban carry in schools or hospitals; others don’t.

    HR 923, the latest reciprocity bill on Capitol Hill, is touted by NRA and GOA because it not only simplifies the matter of travel. It also preserves permitless carry across states for residents of permit-free states.

    NAGR takes quite a dim view of national reciprocity, saying it represents the beginnings of a framework for national gun registration at worst, and at best violates the privacy of gun owners. Furthermore, NAGR advocates for constitutional carry, another term for permitless carry, on the basis of accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment. The group also rails against what it says is the NRA’s profiteering and monopolizing where training is concerned.

    Which side has the best argument?

    NRA and GOA surely have the support of many permitless carry state residents, whose literal interpretation of the 2A brought these states to no-permit-, no-training-required status. It’s ironic that the most “literal,” if you will, of the 2A groups is opposing any national reciprocity–but they too have valid points. Not only can I see the potential for privacy infractions, but other issues.

    In a time when our nation’s police officers are targets of terrorism, they don’t need to be spending more of their roadside time waiting for permit information to download onto their dash-mounted computers. National reciprocity also appears to remove a slice of states’ rights and puts it with the federal government. When that comes to firearms, more federal oversight equates to more federal gun control.

    NAGR is correct in its analysis of NRA’s monopoly on training–however, no other group appears to be challenging that mantle. The NRA’s training standards are generally not a reflection of instructor quality, nor of a graduate’s readiness to bear a handgun for self-defense. I believe the live fire standard to be a reasonable one, considering the gravity of responsibility in carrying a firearm. Meanwhile, NRA has taken much of its beginner pistol course out of local hands and into its online system. Answering questions on a screen correctly is no test of handling a firearm safely and effectively.

    The stance taken by NAGR to oppose national reciprocity is, in this writer’s opinion, closer to the spirit of the 2A. However, the organization is wrong-minded in shunning the idea of at least basic training. Though staunch constitutional carry advocates will deny it, there have been naïve mistakes by carriers in states without a training requirement. Cue up the guy in Altoona, Pennsylvania whose gun went off as he knelt during mass last Easter Sunday—an avoidable mishap that appears to be lack of training on safe carry, in a state that requires no training.

    Dumb unintentional discharges, some tragic, will happen with or without trained carriers. Training doesn’t necessarily change behavior; it does make safer carry and judicious use of deadly force more likely. This is a time in history when gun owners can’t afford stupid mistakes. One person’s mistake is used to paint all guns and their owners as dangerous.

    While I agree in principle with NAGR’s stance, and oppose federally mandated, one-size-fits-all training, I do think that the millions of experienced and competent gun handlers in our nation bear a responsibility to model safe gun handling, and if they carry, to become competent in self-protection in a way that’s sensible for their lifestyle.

    Gun owners shouldn’t be blind to industry marketing schemes. Convenience marketing is one of the oldest and easiest to accomplish. The ease of driving state-to-state without first researching carry requirements is a soothing proposition for busy lives. However, is that worth the sacrifice of privacy or the inevitable compromises (read: restrictions on where one can carry) that will inevitably end up in any bill that becomes law? Besides, websites like handgunlaw.us put current information from all states in one place, bringing a hefty measure of convenience back to the process.

    As a richly diverse nation of gun owners, surely we can find our own ways, in our own communities and states, to hold ourselves and one another to high standards of safety and effectiveness in order that arbitrary government standards not have to be put upon us.

    The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the position of Guns.com.
    Pat ------> NRA Lifetime Endowment Member #FAAFO

    #2
    No.

    I have said it before. If anyone thinks that national reciprocity isn't going to end up being the more restrictive states being the standard bearer, they are wrong.

    Leave it it to the states rights, the way everything should be.
    The escape is complete. The inventor of Hawk fishing. (soon to be seen on ESPN 8 the Ocho)

    Comment


      #3
      Civil Rights don't have boundaries, state lines or training in order to exercise them.
      Ballistic: "Grif... You are my legal eagle spirit animal...."

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Grifhunter View Post
        Civil Rights don't have boundaries, state lines or training in order to exercise them.
        Voting is a civil right. The laws of such are determined by the state.

        Certain states want to have ID to vote. Others want to give illegal aliens the right to vote.

        Be be careful what you wish for, and be cautious of putting to much power in the hands of the Feds.
        The escape is complete. The inventor of Hawk fishing. (soon to be seen on ESPN 8 the Ocho)

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by OH UNCLE PAUL View Post

          Voting is a civil right. The laws of such are determined by the state.

          Certain states want to have ID to vote. Others want to give illegal aliens the right to vote.

          Be be careful what you wish for, and be cautious of putting to much power in the hands of the Feds.
          I'm not putting it in the hands of the feds, I'm putting power in the hands of the citizens to exercise their rights without having to memorize the laws of 50 different jurisdictions. But I get your point.

          Ballistic: "Grif... You are my legal eagle spirit animal...."

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Grifhunter View Post

            I'm not putting it in the hands of the feds, I'm putting power in the hands of the citizens to exercise their rights without having to memorize the laws of 50 different jurisdictions. But I get your point.
            Perhaps the power in the hands of citizens, is something better done sooner, than later.

            November is is right around the corner.
            The escape is complete. The inventor of Hawk fishing. (soon to be seen on ESPN 8 the Ocho)

            Comment


              #7
              NAGR is a bogus organization. I'd be wary of siding with them on anything.
              Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by OH UNCLE PAUL View Post
                No.

                I have said it before. If anyone thinks that national reciprocity isn't going to end up being the more restrictive states being the standard bearer, they are wrong.

                Leave it it to the states rights, the way everything should be.
                While I agree with your concern regarding the most likely perversion of national reciprocity I disagree with states having a right to restrict a a Constitutional right.
                not that it matters. The Constitution is irrelevant in the modern age of progressive liberalism.

                As to taking tests , proving need etc, I'll agree with that as soon as they make mandatory breeding tests.
                you have to file for a permit to have a baby. Prove you can pay for it and prove you can raise it.

                "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Barnslayer View Post
                  NAGR is a bogus organization. I'd be wary of siding with them on anything.
                  I'm not familiar with them.
                  got any details?
                  "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Aquabach View Post

                    I'm not familiar with them.
                    got any details?
                    Here's a good one:

                    Dudley Brown and his “National Association for Gun Rights” (NAGR) have built a reputation by attacking every other major gun rights organization and even pro-gun politicians, to the detriment of the gun rights movement.
                    Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      National Reciprocity is good.

                      National Concealed carry is bad.

                      There is nothing wrong with the National Reciprocity bill that passed the house and received a majority in the Senate a few years ago. All it did was treat a CCW like a Driver's License and state that all states must recognize it. It did not define requirements for a license and preserved the state's ability to control carry through local law just like they can post their own speed limits and traffic laws. It even had added to it the "New York Amendment" that neutered the local restriction nonsense.

                      Reciprocity is great as long as it remains just reciprocity and not a federal licensing scheme.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Barnslayer View Post
                        NAGR is a bogus organization. I'd be wary of siding with them on anything.

                        And the NRA doesn't have major warts of its own? They are behind just about every other major gun control law on the books. There is a reason why other organizations like the GOA exist.

                        The NRA was mostly absent when I lobbied against the safe act. They were absent in Coumo re election until NY2A put pressure on them. The last straw was when a representative told me at a fundraiser, they don't spend money in New York because it's a lost cause and rather focus it elsewhere. But they have no problem spending time and effort for New Yorkers to donate money to them

                        Competition in gun rights group is a good thing, it keeps other organizations in line from bending their principles when dealing with politicians

                        otherwise the NRA would have let more gun control laws come into existence

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Ancap View Post


                          And the NRA doesn't have major warts of its own? They are behind just about every other major gun control law on the books. There is a reason why other organizations like the GOA exist.

                          The NRA was mostly absent when I lobbied against the safe act. They were absent in Coumo re election until NY2A put pressure on them. The last straw was when a representative told me at a fundraiser, they don't spend money in New York because it's a lost cause and rather focus it elsewhere. But they have no problem spending time and effort for New Yorkers to donate money to them

                          Competition in gun rights group is a good thing, it keeps other organizations in line from bending their principles when dealing with politicians

                          otherwise the NRA would have let more gun control laws come into existence
                          Argue with the head of the Second Amendment Foundation. You can also take it up with the NRA.
                          From all the forums I've scanned about this… NAGR only exists to benefit it's founder and has done ZERO for the 2nd Amendment.
                          Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I'm done with the NRA

                            I focus more on groups that are very active in NY such as NY2A, oathkeepers, SCOPE, etc....

                            for the national level I like GOA

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Ancap View Post
                              I'm done with the NRA

                              I focus more on groups that are very active in NY such as NY2A, oathkeepers, SCOPE, etc....

                              for the national level I like GOA
                              Liberals hate and RINOs fear the NRA more than any other organization.
                              They must be doing something right
                              "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X