Posted on 12/06/2016 4:08:00 PM PST by PROCON
The Los Angeles Times editorial board says the Donald Trump backed, NRA push for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity is bad for public safety, calling it “absurd and dangerous” in a piece published Saturday.
Lawmakers have four bills drafted that would make concealed carry reciprocity a federal law allowing gun owners licensed to carry in one state, to be able to carry in any other state. The Times calls it an effort to “dismantle state and local gun-control laws,” driving nationwide concealed carry laws “to the lowest common denominator” by allowing people to get carry permits in states with less stringent training requirements, and then lawfully carrying in any other state.
“They could become law,” writes the editorial board. “That would be a disaster for public safety and a cynical usurpation of the long-standing right of states to determine their own gun laws.”
Supporters of reciprocity say such a measure is the ultimate embodiment of Americans’ Second Amendment right.
“The individual right to carry a firearm in defense of our lives and our families does not and should not end at any state line,” said NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre in a video after the Nov. 8 election.
“A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state,” reads an outline of Trump’s Second Amendment platform.
But the Times refuted that point, saying, “all states follow similar standards for issuing driver’s licenses, and basic vehicle and traffic laws are largely standardized. That’s not so for gun laws, which vary widely by state, not to mention that county and city governments are allowed to enact their own restrictions based on local needs and preferences.”
“It would be ironic to see conservatives who long have professed a belief in states’ rights override states’ choices in this area,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, according to the Associated Press.
Chemerinsky says Congress likely doesn’t have the constitutional authority to order states to honor reciprocity, but could encourage compliance by threatening to withhold federal funding.
“Whether a federal reciprocity law could withstand a constitutional challenge will depend on its final wording,” reads the Times editorial. “But we can’t be confident the Supreme Court will continue to defer to the states. Reasonable minds in Congress need to head this off before the NRA and its legislative acolytes make American [sic] even more dangerous by undercutting reasonable gun controls.”
Perhaps the LAT can tell us which jurisdiction in the last 20 years has seen a spike in violent crime AFTER implementing a “shall issue” CCW policy?
I travel across the country by car a lot. It is a pain (not to mention unsafe) to have to change my route or not carry. I live in a state that is totally as issue (no classes needed)but travel to other states that so far don’t have a problem with me carrying without a class.
It would be entertaining to see a dean of a law school twist himself into a pretzel explaining how the Bill of Rights can be overridden by any state and give examples of any conservatives claim that any Amendment to the BoR could be overridden by state's rights. I don't know of any.
It's why National reciprocity is important.
Heck, if I want to travel from my home state of Washington into Oregon to visit friends, I have to unload and store my handgun as Oregon doesn't have reciprocity with adjoining state Washington.
It's insane!
It’s actually part of the Fed job to ensure the bill of rights is protected in the States. They’ve been asleep at the wheel for a long while on that per 2nd A.
The only reason the states copied bill of rights elements into their own constitutions was to doubly ensure there wouldn’t be a problem.
Lot of good that did.
the 2a is national.
yet we are infringed.
yet people with drivers licenses - a prvilege - kill way more people than law abiding gun owners do a year, and all states recognize a non-right privilege.
yet marriage is nationally recognizes across states.
it is hardly absurd to permit ah explicitly guaranteed constitutinl right.
ifthey go this way stop recognizing sodomite and lesbian marriages, the state laws are still there.
The LA Slimes is a fifth-column leftist media rag giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
“But the Times refuted that point, saying, “all states follow similar standards for issuing driver’s licenses, and basic vehicle and traffic laws are largely standardized. That’s not so for gun laws, which vary widely by state, not to mention that county and city governments are allowed to enact their own restrictions based on local needs and preferences.”
The Times refuted nothing. The Times is making our case. Just substitute “gun laws” with “free speech rights” and try the same rationale.
This will put a spotlight on $hitholes like NJ which has some of the most abusive and unconstitutional gun restrictions in the nation. A State does not have the right to infringe on any of our constitutional rights. It can hardly be argued that NJ’s laws are reasonable when NJ is surrounded by states that allow concealed carry, Class III permits, etc.
Liberals don’t trust what they cannot control.
Freedom? Or no Freedom? If gays can marry in states that don’t want them to, then we should be allowed to carry in states that don’t want us to.
...or laws?
We spend winters in CA (I inherited the ranch out there and capital gains are worth more than I can get for it if I sold it) and every trip there is a stop at either Mesquite, NV or Eherenberg, AZ to unload and store. I hate it.
The LA Times has a point. Concealed carry is specifically intended to be used against violent criminals - Obama’s and Hillary’s constituents. The biggest threat to the safety of democrats engaged in robbery, rape, and other mayhem (their work and their recreation) is an armed citizenry. Of course a liberal newspaper has to oppose the ability of law abiding Americans to defend ourselves.
They confuse the 2nd and 10th Amendments.
“The LA Times has a point. Concealed carry is specifically intended to be used against violent criminals - Obama’s and Hillary’s constituents. The biggest threat to the safety of democrats engaged in robbery, rape, and other mayhem (their work and their recreation) is an armed citizenry. Of course a liberal newspaper has to oppose the ability of law abiding Americans to defend ourselves.”
Scott Adams says that Democrats use guns to kill other Democrats. Republicans use guns to defend themselves from Democrats.
Funny, I think Non Citizens Illegally Voting is pretty much the most dangerous thing to our Republic.
I have carried for many years in my state of Texas an all states that honor my right to carry. I have and never will use my weapon in an illegal manor.
The laws in California suck!
The laws in California suck!
Unfortunately, they will get worse as our moonbats will be in full revenge mode.
Yea, dangerous for the criminals...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.