Posted on 02/20/2015 4:31:30 AM PST by Q-ManRN
That's true up to a point (most states grant "courtesy privileges" for a period of up to six months, or longer for a particular case).
Consider this: My family lives in NY State. If, while I am there, a prescription is needed from me, it will be honored, no questions, and I face no legal jeopardy. If I MOVE to NY State, and open an office to write thousands of prescriptions, then I need a license.
If, while I am there, a bad guy breaks into my family's home and I shoot him dead, DESPITE having license or reciprocity in 34 States, I go to prison with no chance of leniency.
In any event, Congress has the power, under the full faith and credit clause, to rectify this situation.
New York State's position about this is, "Fine, there's FOPA. Use it as a defense at your trial".
Not even NJ, MD, or DC does this.
I would suggest that if reciprocity is carried out, it must be done very, very carefully. With current reciprocity agreements, there is a general rule that the most “generous” rules apply. But a federal law could turn this on its head, that say, a New Yorker visiting Arizona (two states that currently do not have reciprocity), might be *federally* limited to New York’s gun laws. “Strictest” rules apply.
So while the Arizona authorities wouldn’t care if they had a gun, federal officers might arrest him for violating New York’s laws. I know it sounds like a stretch, today, but the federals are notorious for stretching such rules.
Another problem is that, while many states permit ex-convicts to regain their gun rights with permission from a judge, the feds not only do not, ever, restore gun rights to federal felons. They don’t even have a mechanism in the law by which they *could* restore gun rights, short of a presidential pardon. Theoretically, the Attorney General could, but congress has expressly prohibited him from doing so as of 1997.
The bottom line is that there are some real anti-gun villains out there, and they would strive to be part of any federal reciprocity law process, so they could undermine, destroy, or even have it do the opposite of its intent.
I remember how, while pretending to be very pro-border security, some of the loudest of its “supporters” actively plotted and schemed to undermine it in a multitude of ways.
If fear an effort to create federal reciprocity would be as bad or worse.
If and only if you think the States have the legitimate power to control whether and how you may "bear arms." Now that the Second Amendment has been incorporated, I think that an untenable position.
Laudable, but I’m not a fan of giving the Federal government the authority to say so or not.
Just having such a thing as a Second Amendment was already a step down the road of getting the Feds involved. But what else can people do here.
Historically, a whole lot of “gun regulation” took place not because of objective safety concerns, but out of a gut prejudice that this or that or the other class of people is considered unworthy of bearing arms. How dare they not leave themselves naked to assault?
I understand, except I don’t believe in the incorporation doctrine.
Yeah I thought about the law an md license after I posted that ... my bad, thanks for correcting me.
Brain Fart on my part......:o)
Stay Safe !!
Neither do I, but it is the law of the land now and it is how we got the results from Heller and McDonald. I think the whole situation legally perilous.
Thanks for the link. That was a terrific post.
See, the funny thing about the Second Amendment is it doesn’t really need clarification, and it never needed incorporation. It isn’t directed at Congress only, it’s a blanket statement that covers anything that could infringe.
How much of that cake is left?
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.