Ryan Blocking Concealed Carry Reciprocity, Congressman Tells Armed American Radio

[endicom]

AmmoLand
David Codrea
Sept. 11, 2017

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Speaker Paul Ryan will not allow Congressional action on national concealed carry reciprocity to move bills forward, Rep. Thomas Massie told host Mark Walters Thursday on Armed American Radio.  The reason given is Ryan thinks the timing isn’t right to consider H.R. 2909, the D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act, a supplement to state reciprocity provisions of H.R. 38.

More... https://www.ammoland.com/2017/09/ryan-blocking-concealed-carry-reciprocity-congressman-tells-armed-american-radio/

[Frank Cannon]

The time is never right for Ryan to do anything productive......unless it is time to hit the bath houses to show the boys his muscles.

[Mom MD]

And another betrayal by the republicans.  There is truly no difference between the parties anymore.

[DB]

Trump pushed for Ryan's Speakership shortly after being elected.

There are no excuses. They got what they voted for.

[kevindavis007]

Me thinks Mr Massie is not telling the truth.

[endicom]

Me thinks Mr Massie is not telling the truth.

If not then he can explain what he meant.

[verga]

I think it is time to move forward, primary and replace this RINO.

[Applewood]

And I guess the timing wasn't right to repeal Obamacare either. 

All we get from the Republican Party -- not just Ryan -- are excuses and promises they have no intention of keeping. 

[thackney]

This opinion may not be popular, but I do NOT support the federal government trying to force one state to accept the laws of of another.

At the federal level, they should only be legislating that 2nd amendment means what it says: 

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[endicom]

This opinion may not be popular, but I do NOT support the federal government trying to force one state to accept the laws of of another.

At the federal level, they should only be legislating that 2nd amendment means what it says: 

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You're right. You shouldn't create any power you don't want used against you. But that is apparently not Ryan's argument.

[thackney]

You're right. You shouldn't create any power you don't want used against you. But that is apparently not Ryan's argument.

Exactly, If the Feds can tell California they have to accept Texas gun laws, they can (and eventually likely will) tell Texas to accept California gun laws.

[Jazzhead]

And another betrayal by the republicans.  There is truly no difference between the parties anymore.

Except that (at least some) Republicans respect federalism.   Let each state decide for itself what gun laws it wants, consistent with the Second Amendment.  Sounds conservative to me.   

[Jazzhead]

Exactly, If the Feds can tell California they have to accept Texas gun laws, they can (and eventually likely will) tell Texas to accept California gun laws.

Good point.

[Taxcontrol]

This opinion may not be popular, but I do NOT support the federal government trying to force one state to accept the laws of of another.

At the federal level, they should only be legislating that 2nd amendment means what it says: 

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Constitution specifically enumerates (Article IV) in the full faith and credit clause, that states have to respect each other's "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."  -AND-  Per section 2, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

Combine this with the above reference to the 2nd Amendment, I can not see how any state could constitutionally limit the 2nd amendment.

[Jazzhead]

The Constitution specifically enumerates (Article IV) in the full faith and credit clause, that states have to respect each other's "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."  -AND-  Per section 2, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

Provided a state or local law is not inconsistent with the Second Amendment,  doesn't this mean that a traveler is obliged to abide by the local law?   If Texas must respect New Jersey's laws, then the rights of a Texan traveling in New Jersey are not governed by Texas, but rather New Jersey.  New Jersey, can, if it chooses, enter into a reciprocity agreement so that a Texan can lawfully conceal-carry while in New Jersey.  But it should not be compelled to do so. 

[skeeter]

Provided a state or local law is not inconsistent with the Second Amendment,  doesn't this mean that a traveler is obliged to abide by the local law?   If Texas must respect New Jersey's laws, then the rights of a Texan traveling in New Jersey are not governed by Texas, but rather New Jersey.  New Jersey, can, if it chooses, enter into a reciprocity agreement so that a Texan can lawfully conceal-carry while in New Jersey.  But it should not be compelled to do so.

A state who's laws do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms is consistent with the 2A. States who's do not, isn't.

In spite of the progressive tendency to twist and equivocate where they do no like the conclusion, its simple, plain english.

[verga]

This opinion may not be popular, but I do NOT support the federal government trying to force one state to accept the laws of of another.

At the federal level, they should only be legislating that 2nd amendment means what it says: 

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

@thackney All 50 states accept my drivers license, marriage, recognize the hunter training I had in NYS to grant me a license in any of them. Why should this be any different?

[RoosGirl]

This opinion may not be popular, but I do NOT support the federal government trying to force one state to accept the laws of of another.

At the federal level, they should only be legislating that 2nd amendment means what it says: 

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My initial reaction was not favorable for Ryan doing this, but after thinking about it for a minute I agree with what you've written.

[Free Vulcan]

If something like the 2A is legal on a federal level, then you should be able to travel state to state with it.

No different than the right to free speech in the 1A. It applies everywhere.

[RoosGirl]

If something like the 2A is legal on a federal level, then you should be able to travel state to state with it.

No different than the right to free speech in the 1A. It applies everywhere.

On that very simple level I think you're correct.  But I also think that each state has the right to set some rules on what they will and won't allow and the circumstances related to carry regarding amount of training required, etc.

[Free Vulcan]

On that very simple level I think you're correct.  But I also think that each state has the right to set some rules on what they will and won't allow and the circumstances related to carry regarding amount of training required, etc.

I'm thinking more of traveling from state to state with a gun. I think there's a balance between the will of the State and that of the FedGov, but on this issue of reciprocity I tend to fall on the Fed side because it is enumerated in the Constitution.

It would be no different than New Jersey telling a Texas resident he doesn't have political protest free speech rights there. If Constitutional rights don't carry state to state then they're null and void. A Texas resident shouldn't be jailed because he took a gun legally thru a Jersey airport where it's illegal, yet he was just passing thru.

Now if he moved there and became a resident, that's a different matter.

[Smokin Joe]

Except that (at least some) Republicans respect federalism.   Let each state decide for itself what gun laws it wants, consistent with the Second Amendment.  Sounds conservative to me.

Unfortunately, that gets into a whole 'nother snarl over interpretation of the RKBA. What New York thinks vs North Dakota are different critters.

Another serious problem is that some States don't require any permit to legally carry concealed. There's nothing to have reciprocity with.

I like the fundamental idea that if you are considered by your home state to be a rational and moral enough person to be carrying the means to dispense lethal force, that recognition should not end at the state line. You, as a person have neither changed in demeanor (well, except for some tourists I saw in my youth) nor proficiency, and should not be summarily criminalized for a mere change in location across some line which cannot generally be seen, and exists only on a map.

If Police, Peace Officers and members of the military can have that acknowledged, then surely those private citizens who have gone through the training, background checks, and proficiency tests can be similarly treated.

[Suppressed]

@thackney All 50 states accept my drivers license, marriage, recognize the hunter training I had in NYS to grant me a license in any of them. Why should this be any different?

@verga
But there are limits on that "accept".  For example, if you are pulled over in a state/commonwealth where there isn't a reciprocity agreement, you can be forced to sit in jail rather than get a ticket and be on your way.  I recall hearing that many people were surprised to find out that their state had no reciprocity with Virginia, for example.

[RoosGirl]

I'm thinking more of traveling from state to state with a gun. I think there's a balance between the will of the State and that of the FedGov, but on this issue of reciprocity I tend to fall on the Fed side because it is enumerated in the Constitution.

It would be no different than New Jersey telling a Texas resident he doesn't have political protest free speech rights there. If Constitutional rights don't carry state to state then they're null and void. A Texas resident shouldn't be jailed because he took a gun legally thru a Jersey airport where it's illegal, yet he was just passing thru.

Now if he moved there and became a resident, that's a different matter.

I'm not sure you can separate out permanent residents and visitor though.  Not allowing guns at all, of course I'm against, setting "rules" for carry I am okay with and I'm good with States working things out themselves regarding reciprocity.

[RoosGirl]

Unfortunately, that gets into a whole 'nother snarl over interpretation of the RKBA. What New York thinks vs North Dakota are different critters.

Another serious problem is that some States don't require any permit to legally carry concealed. There's nothing to have reciprocity with.

I like the fundamental idea that if you are considered by your home state to be a rational and moral enough person to be carrying the means to dispense lethal force, that recognition should not end at the state line. You, as a person have neither changed in demeanor (well, except for some tourists I saw in my youth) nor proficiency, and should not be summarily criminalized for a mere change in location across some line which cannot generally be seen, and exists only on a map.

If Police, Peace Officers and members of the military can have that acknowledged, then surely those private citizens who have gone through the training, background checks, and proficiency tests can be similarly treated.

But, as you point out, in some states there is no licensing, so not everyone would have gone through training, background checks, proficiency, etc.