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

[Cougar]

It's just the principle of the thing. I feel we all have a duty to obey the law. I also feel that we all have a natural right to protect ourselves, and the law should reflect that.

 

[mons meg]

I understand the principle, but since there's something close to a zero chance that the current Congress will move to amend this, we'd have to relay on a court case.

Tell me if my reasoning is sound, here. A (good) court case would require a scenario in which an out of state permit holder got pulled over for a simple traffic violation and the local LEO decided to arrest based on a Federal law unrelated to the traffic violation at hand.

Then the permit holder appeals based on a 2A argument, etc etc and the SCOTUS has to tell Congress yet again that the revised GFSZA is *still* unconstitutional, just like in Lopez. I tend to think "we" would easily win that case, but it's highly unlikely it'd ever come to that.

 

[AC37]

I agree we need to obey the law, and the Second Amendment is the highest law of the land. This is a perfect example of illegal law, law which is not legal because it violates the highest law of the land. It absolutely does need to be challenged and go away.

For those of you who did not hear, activism just succeeded in getting rid of illegal law banning National Parks CCW - Fed law now accedes to state law on this subject. This means you can now carry without violating (illegal) Federal law in OK, and many other states.

Just because this is an issue I have spent so much time studying, and a brief primer for newcomers on this subject - there is absolutely no room or legality for gun control laws under the Second Amendment - "Shall not be infringed" does not leave any wiggle room on the subject whatsoever. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right - a perspective reaffirmed over the summer by the SC, though they did not reaffirm the latter part (unsuprisingly) - though the latter part has long been affirmed by the laws of two states - not only Vermont, but Alaska as well. The SC is, as usual, stacked with wussies who are well behind the curve and unwilling to rock the boat too much - just like they did in the Dred Scott case - where the SC could not find that black people were human beings and not merely property, because then they would have to be afforded all the rights given to every other United States citizen.

Bottom line: don't hold your breath for the SC to sweep illegal law away - we're going to have to do things ourselves with grassroots activism. Much behind the curve they'll come up and reaffirm things.

 

[mons meg]

The National Parks issue was one of Federal regulation, not specific law, IIRC. There was no court case or legislative action required for that. Who knows what regs we will get come January.

Bottom line: don't hold your breath for the SC to sweep illegal law away - we're going to have to do things ourselves with grassroots activism. Much behind the curve they'll come up and reaffirm things.

Like the Heller case? That was kind of a big win, and worth holding our breath for, IMO. But in all seriousness, we're not going to get the Congress to move on gun legislation while the Democrats have a lock on the agenda, plus a sympathetic President. So, the courts are the tool we have right now.

See:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King

This one could be the one to go all the way for 2A incorporation...we'll see.

 

[Michael Brown]

Tell me if my reasoning is sound, here. A (good) court case would require a scenario in which an out of state permit holder got pulled over for a simple traffic violation and the local LEO decided to arrest based on a Federal law unrelated to the traffic violation at hand.

This is outside the jurisdiction of a local LEO.

The only way it could POSSIBLY happen would be the same scenario and substitute the arrest with an LEO approaching the ATF with information by which the ATF could acquire a warrant.

I don't normally tell people not to worry about rules, but this a one I think you can safely say you don't have much to worry about.

I doubt I could find ONE officer on my agency who is aware this law exists.

Why?

Because local officers don't enforce federal laws.

A similar example would be the state's rationale for creating it's own illegal immigrant laws since local LEO's can't enforce immigration laws because they are federal laws without federal cross-deputization.

In local agencies, the officers that are federally cross-deputized are not out stopping cars in school zones.

Again, mountain becoming molehill.

Michael Brown

 

[mons meg]

Thanks Mike. I was trying to illustrate the unlikelihood of the situation, but you helped me make my point.

It also illustrates why the only times anyone gets jammed up over the school zone law is when it's a secondary charge to another federal crime, i.e. already in federal LEO jurisdiction.

 

[AC37]

Like the Heller case? That was kind of a big win, and worth holding our breath for, IMO. But in all seriousness, we're not going to get the Congress to move on gun legislation while the Democrats have a lock on the agenda, plus a sympathetic President. So, the courts are the tool we have right now.

I wouldn't phrase it as a "big win" though to call it a limited win setting the stage for other positive changes would be fair - given Heller more or less upheld the right of the states to infringe on "shall not be infringed" if you read the decision thoroughly - the Amicus Briefs submitted by the majority of states stated while they wanted 2A ruled as an individual right, they "have a controlling interest" in making sure gun control laws stick around.. It certainly could have turned out much worse, I will give you that. Not to mention it was a 5-4 decision and 5-4s are certainly revisited from time to time.

Also, the President is a little more than "sympathetic" - he favors a nat'l ban on CCW, a process 48 out of 50 states have - only WI and IL, where he's from, have no laws providing for CCW. He also favors a new AWB and endless other rights removal such as across-the-board gun registration and even (long-term) confiscation.

Bush was a "sympathetic" president, our president-elect is vociferously anti-gun.

Incorporation is our best hope for this one.

 

[mons meg]

Bush was a "sympathetic" president, our president-elect is vociferously anti-gun.

Incorporation is our best hope for this one.

Agreed. I believe the case to watch is Nordyke v. King currently in the 9th Circus.

 

[Cougar]

Senator Coburn's office supports fixing this, and is currently in the process of drafting legislation to add an exception to the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act, for any firearm lawfully carried, or discharged under state law. This is extremely important.

Please call/write him and express your support!!!!!

A simple E-mail stating your name and that you support amending The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act, Title 18 U.S.C. 922(q) to make the lawful carry and discharge of a firearm under state law, legal under federal law, is sufficient. It will only take a few minutes of your time.



Senator Tom Coburn
Washington D.C.:
172 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-5754
Fax: 202-224-6008
E-Mail Senator Coburn




Senator Inhofe's office has also expressed support, but I am not aware of them drafting any legislation... give them a call and let them know this is important to you.


Senator James Inhofe
Washington, DC Office:
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 -3603
Main: (202) 224-4721
Fax: (202) 228-0380
E-mail Senator Inhofe

 

[Roadking Larry]

Thanks for the Update Cougar, is there a bill number yet or is it still in the draft phase and is there a reference source we can look at to see what is going on?