State-issued CCW's, reciprocity re: drivers' licences

today | King Prout

[King Prout]

I live in Georgia.

A lot of Yankees pass through my great State on their way to Florida.

Their home States do not respect Georgia-issued CCW permits, and can and do fine, impound the property of, and imprison upstanding Georgians who dare to cross their borders while packing heat.

A CCW is much like a drivers' licence, in that it certifies the bearer as being approved by his home state to own and operate a potentially dangerous piece of machinery in the course of his usual daily business. The several States have agreed to honor SDLs issued by other States.

This set of facts forces me to pause, and go "hrmn..."

I say Georgia should immediately cease respecting DRIVER'S LICENCES issued by such States, and immediately arrest those drivers and impound their cars, until such time as their States of residence choose to adopt a more enlightened and Constitutional attitude.

[King Prout]

It is worth a shot, nonetheless.
I'd be amused to hear the twisted rationale the courts would use to strike down punitive reciprocity policies. I don't doubt that they'd manage it, but lack the imagination and perversity needed to envision their deformed "logic"

[general_re]

It wouldn't be too difficult to imagine how they'd do it. The states of New York, Massaschusetts, et al., are merely setting conditions whereby you may travel in their states. This law would essentially have Georgia forbid it altogether, and the instant some trucker with Massaschusetts plates gets stopped at the border, in comes the Commerce Clause and out goes Georgia's law. Not saying it's right, but it's inevitable, and most people around the country aren't going to take to the streets over it, either.

But like I said, that particular hypothetical really doesn't matter much, since the state of Georgia will never, ever pass such a law - it'd simply cost too much money. And as much lip-service as your state legislators may pay to the Second Amendment, at the end of the day, they like that free out-of-state money more. ;)

[general_re]

Not that I mean to discourage you from trying, but you will have an uphill battle, I think ;)

[King Prout]

hrmn...
I can think of weasel methods to make those dogs not hunt.
A rationale could be found to exempt CDLs from this measure (like: they undergo soooo much more training, have sooo much more interstate road experience, etc...) so the "free out-of-state money" thing'd be a dead issue.
The law would not do any more than establish the conditions under which out-of-staters from target states could travel in Georgia. They can fly, travel by rail, or by bus. That is not at all a total ban.
However, now that I think on it with a bellyfull of coffee in me, that dodge sets up the kill-shot on the law: It'd only apply to drivers from states which don't honor Georgia CCWs.
I do believe such selective laws are against the law.
Damn.

[general_re]

It might not even come to a court challenge, though - according to packing.org, there are only 17 of the other 49 states that honor Georgia's permits/licenses. That means you're going to be banning 31 states worth of drivers, and not just the usual suspects, either - you'll be banning folks with Virginia, South Carolina, and Texas licenses too. Georgia has 13 Congressmen - New York has 29, California has 52, and Texas has 32. You can do the math and figure out if such a law could survive Congress asserting Commerce Clause authority to override it, but I'm betting it couldn't.

Besides, every time someone with out-of-state plates gets ticketed on I-95, that's free money for the state of Georgia. Every time somebody stops for lunch or gas on their way through, that's free money for the state of Georgia. Now you want your state legislators to just give that up. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but rotsa ruck with that one - never mind that the convenience store owners and truck-stop waitresses would go headhunting for legislators in the wake of such a law, the legislators themselves probably like the money way too much to give it up. And then you get your home-grown Georgia liberals talking about how you're screwing poor people and minorities by forcing cutbacks in the free-money-for-deadbeats programs and so on and so forth - it's likely to be a giant mess ;)

But like I said, that's not to discourage you from trying, even if it ultimately ends up going nowhere. At the very least, you can get the issue of reciprocity out in the open and get people talking about it. And in the long run, that's what will lead to change, more than anything else.

[King Prout]

sell the impounded cars :)

[general_re]

...there are only 17 of the other 49 states that honor Georgia's permits/licenses. That means you're going to be banning 31 states worth of drivers...

That's that new, decaf math - you'd be banning 32 states worth of drivers. Now I'm off to fetch more coffee, dammit ;)

[general_re]

Nah, you don't wanna do that. Then you'll wind up with a host of stranded New York and Massachusetts liberals, who can't get home. Some of them might decide to stay and vote, dang it - your next Congressional district will be "Little Boston" or something. Get them in and out as quickly as possible, with a minimum of fuss, is my advice ;)

[general_re]

BTW, I found this opinion from the Georgia AG. It's definitely out of date in some respects - it's from 1997 - but it's still an interesting look at why there is no reciprocity with some states.

[King Prout]

stick 'em in Atlanta - no one would notice any difference.

[King Prout]

good cull.
beginning to look like my notion appeared attractive only because I was deeply ignorant.
wishful thinking. sigh. I still wish, though.

[Eastbound]

Thanks. Scribbles are mine.

[general_re]

Hey, like I said, it's still worthwhile to get the issue out in the open and get people talking about it. Educate people about why reciprocity is a good idea, and you might see some movement eventually.

[King Prout]

well, to that end, this whole thread is a good primer.

[archy]

well, to that end, this whole thread is a good primer.

Just so. And somev legal precedent comes to mind, as well as a possible parallel strategy. In the case of motorcyclists traveling interstate facing differing state laws on mandatory helmet requirements, you can imagine the difficulties if a different unit was required in each such state. There's also similar case law regarding mandatory child safety seats:

The court case that best brings this fact to light is entitled Juvenile Products v. Edmisten. In Juvenile Products , the item of discussion was infant seats, but the need for consistent regulation, and resulting mandates, are the same. The court explained that the state regulation (definition) regarding infant seats must be identical to the Federal standard, to wit:

"Under National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, states play a role in enforcement of federal regulatory scheme created by Act, but states may enforce no standards which are not identical to federal standards. National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Section 103(d), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. Section 1392(d)." Juvenile Products v. Edmisten , 568 F.Supp. 714 (1983) (emphasis added)

And if one state can restrict the rights or another's licensed handgun carriers, why then should police officers or elected officials from such an outlaw regime be extended any similar courtesy....