While I am squarely in favor of National Reciprocity among the states, I am concerned about one aspect. Those states with abnormally large federal representation (CA, NY, etc) are also the states most belligerent about reciprocity. What will ensure that those states do not dictate the TERMS of reciprocity if passed by the congress? Most specifically, I don’t want California dictating what weaponry I carry here in Tennessee. I can foresee so many unintended consequences, caveats, and restrictions on a nation-wide reciprocity law. Reciprocity will be a disaster if CA succeeds in restricting nation-wide carry to ball-and-cap pistols (as a worse case example). How do we ensure that these states do not dictate terms of National Reciprocity?
Especially CA! Those liberal Dumocratics have already caused trouble in SO many areas it is never going to be straighten out.
Welcome @James1601!
A fine question. Reminds me of the Biden Administration admitting that the Census data said to remove Congressional representation from California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota and add representation to Texas, Florida, Tennessee, etc.
Yet, nothing has been done. Republicans worry about losing seats in the mid-terms, yet the seats are legally just sitting there waiting for the action step.
The bills before congress are to level the playing fields among the states by leveling off their restrictions that infringe on our Second Amendment Rights to KABA. They in no way give any state any authority to dictate anything over any other state.
You are injecting a theory into a solution to that very problem that is the exact opposite of the bills’ intended purpose, to eliminate infringements on our 2A rights as they do exist now.
There should be no such hesitancy to support these bills designed to eliminate the problem, not enhance it.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution should be upheld by the Supreme Court to take all unconstitutional infringements imposed by any states, and assert the Second Amendment as the sole law of the land on the matter.
No wiggle room for misinterpretation by the states that now ignore the Constitution notwithstanding these bills that are being pushed to correct that very issue.
James!
Welcome to the fold Brother!
Excellent first post
You are right where you’re suppose to be
WWG1WGA
@James1601 Welcome to the community!
Welcome James1601. Interesting point.
Once a federal law is made, it’s hard to change that, very slow going.
I remember I once sat in on a condo association home owners’ meeting. The board was proposing to enact one of three different policies. One of the bids included several smaller details which would actually have significant ramifications. However, the residents were not aware of all that would be included.
It was then I realized, often times, proposals, Bills of policy and law contain hidden or lesser known details, as a bundle, but the marketing of it can emphasize or highlight only one aspect.
I don’t know what the solution/remedy to your question is. Maybe more awareness, and those who write and vote on it be informed and advocate for us all.
Not sure if state laws would help offset said federal laws. Is it good to have a more free reciprocity, non restrictive, but then let the states add on restrictions; For example, said state represents their own citizens?
Nothing personal against CA, NY, I personally would not be visiting there.
Heard someone say today, “The reason the USA is so great and so many wished they lived here, is because of many countries in the world, ours is so free and fair to its citizens, compared to those other countries”.
On a separate note: I’d never want to break a law or go to prison, but I wonder if compared to other countries, our justice and prison system is less scary than in other countries?
It wont go anywhere if it even passes. Left will find a progressive judge to block. Then im sure it will eventually end up at the 9th circus that the left loves to use and eventually to scotus. Dont have good feelings there also.
Nowadays, congress and the president dont mean squat, its all legislated by progressive judges.
Don’t forget Illinois. They never miss an opportunity to infringe upon their citizens rights
And Colorado of late
This is not true … Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is widely credited with cementing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. “The executor of this aggressive push is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is almost singularly focused on reshaping the federal judiciary …”
Under the leadership of then-Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Trump appointed 174 judges to district courts.[8] These new federal judges are about four years younger on average than previous appointees, meaning they will remain on the bench longer than their counterparts.[9] Indeed, McConnell told a Federalist Society crowd in 2019 that one of his favorite weeks during the Trump presidency was when the Senate confirmed two jurists.
Cocaine turtle is one of biggest rinos there is.
Yes, he approved( if you will) alot of judges. Left just goes to the others.
All the left has are judges, legislate from the bench.
A. Give it a chance and see where the chips fall.
B. Everything offered to correct this issue gets shot down before it’s launched.
C. Leave it as messed up as it is, because the nay sayers don’t think anything will work or make it worse.
I vote for A. Or, DJT signed an E.O., but that should be codified by congressional Legislation that’s more permanent but, there are those that don’t want congress involved. But, the Supreme Court should have long ago upheld the Second Amendment as the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says it overrides the states on this issue. But, but, but, I have heard every excuse not to do anything about the states unlawful, unconstitutional infringement on our 2A RTK&BA with an inconsistent hodgepodge set of restrictions that make uniform national constitutional Resiprocity impossible as it stands,
I don’t know what else to suggest but to reset the clock back to the first attempt to restrict our 2A rights by the first state gets put in its place by the Supreme Court, and this never becomes the issue that it has. But, here we are arguing every other attempt to fix it. And, yet there is a lack of consensus as to which branch of government should do it, and not all can even agree if it be the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial that should take the lead, and every time one is suggested, others object.
I say it’s time to 
, or get off the pot!
Let something positive for 2A be done, and move it on.
When it comes to the 2A, seems like choice B is what happens that leads to choice C.
I dont like it either but its reality
Well for those who thinks an Ex. Order is too tenuous, and maybe temporary just until the next election, and the Supreme Court gets off its ass, and does it job, by default that leaves Congress enacting a bill which we have two similar ones proposed one each by the House and the Senate.
Either one, or a hybrid of the two would be much better than leaving the mess that currently exists, and curtail much of it making driving across America with a gun much less a hassle than it is now.
Personally, I think the original 2A concept should be restored to the supreme law of the land, and end all the states unconstitutional nonsense to the contrary.
But, I am not the Supreme Court, and what I think along with the right amount of cash with get you a taxi ride.
They already do what you suggest. The bill would not enhance that anymore.
To the contrary the idea of the bill is to end that and revert back to the original intent of 2A TRTKABA constitutionally. Not any state restricted version of which there is a mixed bag across the nation.
This bill doesn’t enable the states to do any worse, it is designed to bring them back to what is constitutional.
I hate to be the negative nancy of the group but nothing ever gets done, let alone have the government follow the constitution and the bill of rights.
Hell, we cant even get rid of terrorist and illegals because of the judiciary branch. Where the hell is bondi? Thats right, shes not a big fan of the 2A, probably go against her doners.
Hope im wrong but not holding my breath
No reason/s to stop us from trying to improve our 2A situation, if we don’t try, then who will?
I’m not happy with the Supreme Court not taking the lead in this.
But, as you mentioned too many liberal judges have been appointed, that should recuse themselves from their anti-2A decisions as a conflict of interest, not to unconstitutionally infringe on our 2A rights.
Theoretically the Senate is structured to balance out the power carried by the higher population states in the House. The system isn’t perfect, but it is what we have.
I think that a reciprocity policy is more likely to come from a SCOTUS ruling, not from lawmakers.
% We have to push the lawmakers to bring it to the supreme courts