Reciprocity is Currently Banned Under Federal Law (Very Important Please Read)

[Kiyot]

Okay they used the commerce clause to enact this little gem, but I don't see how in the world that someone carrying affects commerce in any way. They've stretched that as far as they can in most instances, this is the first I've heard of this, and plan on doing some more reading on it and the Lopez decision also. What I do not get is why they limit it in states other than your own. Would seem to me if they were going to use the commerce clause they would have to apply it to all states and not give exception to your home state. I did read somewhere that a state had passed a law that specifically exempted them from this, but was the original 1990 passing of it so it may not apply to the amended versions.

It is probaly just something that someone is going to have to actually get hemmed up on it and it go to court again. I'm sure if this was something that people were actually being sent to jail on that it would be more in the spotlight especially within this crowd.

 

[Cougar]

The State of Montana passed a law many years ago stating that it's citizens were "licensed" under their state constitution for the purpose of this law. The reason your permit only exempts you in your own state, is in my opinion, an unintentional mistake in the wording of the law. When Congress passed the law their intent was to exempt permit holders, however reciprocity was not widespread back then and it was an accidental oversight to word it the way they did. The big question, is whether under this law, you are "licensed" by another state because of a reciprocity agreement for the purpose of this law when you are on vacation with your family. ATF says absolutely not and that you are not exempt unless your physical license was actually issued by the state itself. As it relates to this law, the federal courts have never had a chance to create case law defining what "licensed" means so it is up to everyone's interpretation. The democratic thing to do is to have Congress amend the law, so that it clearly exempts permit holders from any state. There should also be an exception for any other firearm lawfully carried or transported under state law.

 

[mons meg]

Well, if they're gonna go all "commerce clause", it stands to reason that they would need to enforce mandatory reciprocity of weapon licenses in the way they mandate reciprocity of driver's licenses. But that's obviously not the intent of Congress here.

 

[RyansFortyFives]

Ironically, law enforcement officers carrying under LEOSA are also not exempt from the GFSZA, as it is a federal law, and can not drive across town without violating this law

This is false, because of this...

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm-
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity

Also, CCW License holders are by the state through the fact that the states agree to recognize other state's licenses. Therefore CCW License holders are also exempt.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm-
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

Done and done. LEO's and CCW License holders are exempt.

This law is intended to enact stiffer penalties for illegal gun-running, and distribution. Not constituitionally allowed concealed carry.

LEO's are not Federal Employees, they are employed by the state. Therefore, the only agencies that could/would enforce this law would be FBI or something like that. And I don't see the FBI making any traffic stops.

 

[Jon1911]

I am in Law school right now. We studied the Lopez case earlier this semester. In that case, the "Gun Free School Zones Act" was deemed unconstitutional.

 

[Cougar]

Ryan, a law enforcement officer carrying under LEOSA on their day off, or while on vacation with their family is not exempt from this law, as they are not acting in their official capacity in either circumstance. Also, I understand your argument regarding CCW reciprocity, your argument is that the reciprocal state is "licensing" you by reciprocity agreement... and I agree with you, however the BATF does not... Read the letter I linked to above. Maybe a local LEO can correct me if I'm wrong? But I'm under the impression that a local LEO can indeed arrest for violations of federal law unless they are specifically prohibited by the feds from doing so. Jon1911, please read the United States v Dorsey case that I posted above. A federal appeals court upheld the revised law as constitutional in 2005.

 

[AgentJBOND]

RyansFortyFives:

and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

Couldn't that be read to mean that, since Texas cops don't do background checks on us Okies, our Okie CCW doesn't count for purposes of this exemption?

 

[Cougar]

Yes, it can be. ATF's opinion is that Alabama permit holders aren't even exempt in Alabama since Alabama authorities aren't required to do the "appropriate" background checks. This is exactly why this law needs to be amended.

 

[J.P.]

Cougar,
Interesting...and you're right, the NRA certainly hasn't been screaming about it to the degree you'd think they would.
Well, let me rephrase that.....
The NRA hasn't done a lot to bring this to our attention.

We should keep an eye on this one.
Thanks for posting!

This law is intended to enact stiffer penalties for illegal gun-running, and distribution.

How many tens of thousands of gun laws to we have on the books???
...and here's why:

When you really get down to it, most gun laws are designed to enumerate charges/penalties on those select scumbags of society.

Unfortunately, Joe Square Citizen is the one affected by them when he didn't even do anything wrong....matter of fact, by definition isn't it only the criminals who break the laws?

It would appear to me that Joe Square Citizen would get along just fine without any gun laws.
So why are they punishing him?

They need to simply make the penalties for the origianl crimes stiff enough that:
a) New laws need not be created simply to put away the guy that has already F'd up

b) It might have a chance to act as a deterrant.

Nah....

 

[RyansFortyFives]

Ryan, a law enforcement officer carrying under LEOSA on their day off, or while on vacation with their family is not exempt from this law, as they are not acting in their official capacity in either circumstance. Also, I understand your argument regarding CCW reciprocity, your argument is that the reciprocal state is "licensing" you by reciprocity agreement... and I agree with you, however the BATF does not... Read the letter I linked to above. Maybe a local LEO can correct me if I'm wrong? But I'm under the impression that a local LEO can indeed arrest for violations of federal law unless they are specifically prohibited by the feds from doing so. Jon1911, please read the United States v Dorsey case that I posted above. A federal appeals court upheld the revised law as constitutional in 2005.

Again, you aren't seeing my argument here. The BATF is a FEDERAL AGENCY.

It's just like the medicinal marijuana laws in California. The local PD's do not go around busting the medicinal weed shops, because it's not illegal according to California Law.

The DEA, BATF, and FBI bust the shops all the time because according to FEDERAL law, marijuana is still illegal. Do you get what I'm saying now? It's whether or not the arresting agency is a FEDERAL agency.