Originally Posted by Bikenut
The following is my take on national reciprocity. Feel free to disagree.....
I am against any national reciprocity law from Daddy Fed. I believe that once Daddy Fed has the power to regulate carry permits through the commerce clause.. and requiring all states to recognize the permits from other states IS regulating carry permits and sets the precedent of having the authority for further regulating...the most restrictive states will demand Daddy Fed come up with a uniform system of criteria/restrictions that must be met in order to qualify for a carry permit that would be acceptable, and fair, to all the states. And the most restrictive states would demand those criteria/restrictions at least be the same as the one's those states already have.
I also have no doubt that when Congress flips to Democrat and/or someone like Hillary gets elected they would use the power of the commerce clause granted by a national reciprocity law to make carry permit restrictions so strict as to effectively legislate permits out of the reach of ordinary folks. But still within reach of the rich elite like themselves.
And while begging Daddy Fed to give another privilege might seem attractive from a right now point of view it has already been shown that, while it might take longer, it is very possible for folks who are willing to work at it to gain permitless carry in individual states one state at a time.
I disagree.
In case you haven't noticed, the Feds are already regulating carry permits. Or did you forget that while Utah is more than happy to recognize your Iowa or Ohio or any other permit on completely equal footing to a Utah permit, the Feds make a criminal for walking within 1000 feet (as the crow flies) of any K-12 school in Utah unless you have a permit issued by Utah. That is current and existing gun law and it exists under authority of the commerce clause.
All congress has to do to make permits beyond the reach of most everyone is to simply change the keep out zone from 1000 feet to 10,000 or 20,000 feet (which is much closer to the range at which a stray bullet could, in theory, present a risk to any innocent child it hit) and then not exempt those with permits from the State in which the school is located. Those two changes to the current Federal GFSZ law would render most of our permits and any ability to OC in most incorporated areas entirely moot. How many square feet of your town can you find that are not within 3 miles of a K-12 school?
What protects us from congress making such changes, or from re-enacting the scary looking gun ban and not granting a grandfather clause, is not the lack of some "precedence". What protects us from such gun grabs is the memory of Congressmen about what happened to the Democrat majority after passing the scary looking gun ban of 1994. The passage of that law resulted in the Democrats losing control of the US House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.
Notice what even the extreme-left
Mother Jones had to say about the issue in this 2012 article discussing Obama's efforts to re-enact the 1994 scary looking gun ban:
[T]here was a stiff cost [to the 1994 gun ban]. When Congress passed the assault weapons ban, the NRA vowed vengeance. Months later, the Republicans, backed by the still-outraged NRA, romped the Democrats in the midterm election, gaining 54 seats and control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Clinton, for one, believed that voting for the the assault weapons ban had cost about 20 House Democrats their seats—meaning that the measure had caused a political backlash that led to a GOP the majority in the House. If Obama and others confront the NRA, they had better expect—and prepare for—a battle that will reach a crescendo on November 4, 2014.
Obama got Obamacare. Even with both houses of congress in Democrat hands, he was not able to get any legislative gun control.
Most every common man or woman who buys a gun for self defense becomes another vote against gun control. Most every common man or woman who gets the opportunity to start legally carrying a gun for self defense in public becomes another vote against every losing that ability. They may not become hard-core libertarians or even Republicans. But once a person has experienced the ability to legally own and carry a gun for self defense, s/he doesn't often vote to surrender that.
THAT, that political power, is that protects and gains increased statutory respect for our RKBA.
I also note that congress exercising all kinds of authority to require anti-discrimination protections, protections for the disabled, environmental regulations, etc ad naseum has not much been useful in terms of congress ever turning around and forcing discrimination, requiring the disabled by mistreated, or mandating the environment be polluted. That is history, not some misunderstanding of what "precedence" does or doesn't bind congress.