National Right to Carry Reciprocity Legislation

[JDBerg]

Please support National Right to Carry Reciprocity legislation! I have a Pennsylvania License to Carry, and I work in New Jersey. I cannot legally defend myself across state lines because of the situation mentioned in this article;

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150412/gov-chris-christie-pardons-shaneen-allen

 

[ronl]

Interestingly enough, Allen West just wrote an article concerning this subject and the current ruling on gay marriage. Roberts used the 14th amendment to justify the issue of marriage rights to gays in all 50 states because he claims it is a right. It has already been determined by Heller that gun ownership is an individual right. Using the same reasoning as established by the high court in the ruling on gay marriage, the same reasoning can and should be applied equally throughout the US concerning the right to carry.

 

[bandaid1]

I agree. I also think that the argument about limitations on the "types" of firearms(or other weapons) that are covered by the Second Amendment are likely to fail due to this ruling.

If the American people have a right to marry whomever they wish, then they also have a right to "Arm" themselves with whatever weapons they wish. Right?

 

[JDBerg]

Well if the issue of carry permit reciprocity has to go to SCOTUS to get resolved then so be it. The firearms laws in New Jersey are draconian and designed to discourage people from owning & carrying firearms in the first place. But it seems like many of the people who live here aren't bothered by the restrictions. Except for hunters, very few New Jersey residents, as a percentage of the general population, own or carry firearms.

I have to travel to, and work in Jersey and I don't have my EDC carry with me. I have to travel through some neighborhoods adjacent to where I work that I just wish I didn't have to travel through. I just hope that this matter gets due consideration through the legislature and / or the courts.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Who here has actually read Obergefell?

Would someone who has actually read the opinion like to explain to us exactly how that opinion makes a federal national carry reciprocity law more likely or attractive?

If anyone wants to take up this challenge, base your arguments solely on the exact language of the SCOTUS majority opinion, and not on secondary sources.

As I've pointed out before, it is a waste of time to discuss court opinions without having actually read and understood them. If you want to discuss what Obergefell means you need to read the opinion and base your discussions on what the opinion actually says -- not what you think others think it says.

 

[bandaid1]

I'll take a shot at it. After reading it which was difficult since the colorfull wording discribes associative propertises that are hard to imagine let alone swallow. There is this passage:

"(2) Four principles and tradition demonstrate that the reasons marrage is fundimental under the constitution apply with equal force to same -sex couples. The first premise of this Court's relevant precedents is that the right to individual autonomy"

Thus if military and police have found a use in self defense for assault rifles then as a civilian exersizing the same individual autonomy would be free to make their personal choice.

" This abiding connection between marrage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marrage bans under the Due Process Clause. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons whatever their sexual orientation."

Reworded: This abiding connection between self defense and liberty is why pubic safety concerns invalidated pistol bans under the 2nd Amendment. See Heller. This is true for all persons whatever their firearm preference is.

" A second principal in this Court's jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundimental because its supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold n Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of marragied couples to use contraception. 381 U.S. , at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offence."

Reworded; A second principal in this Court's jurisprudence is that the right to bear arms is fundimental because its supports a individual citizens personal safety unlike any other in its importance against a once committed individual. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Mcdonald v Chacago which held the Constitution protects the right of people to use Live ammo in functional firearms for self defense was acknowledged in Heller. Gun owners have the same right to standard capacity magazines as police and military enjoy in thier right to self defense, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making firearm ownership a criminal offence.

Hooyah

 

[bandaid1]

As a side note: I'm not sure when the justices last took a basic sex ed class but Abstinence is a form of contraception that does not require the support by a two person intimate union and is without a dought exersized by a committed individual . Thus making this association sounds foolish. Because it sounds like the use of contraception is the enjoyment of the intimate association. Well what enjoyment is found in Abstinence ? Again, their reasoning is flawed without defining the type of contraception they are talking about.

Here is the section I'm talking about:

" A second principal in this Court's jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundimental because its supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold n Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of marragied couples to use contraception. 381 U.S. , at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offence."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Reworded;...

Nope! What makes you think that you can just reword what the Court said in Obergefell?

Notice that in Obergefell the Court supported each statement with extensive citation to authority and precedent supporting those statements. Your rewording business would need to be similarly supported, but you have failed to do so.

Sure you tossed in some references to Heller and McDonald. The problem is that Heller and McDonald don't tie back to your reworded language.

So you write:

This abiding connection between self defense and liberty is why pubic safety concerns invalidated pistol bans under the 2nd Amendment. See Heller.

But exactly where in Heller does the Court say anything at all like that?

And you write:

A second principal in this Court's jurisprudence is that the right to bear arms is fundimental because its supports a individual citizens personal safety unlike any other in its importance against a once committed individual. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Mcdonald v Chacago...

But exactly what in McDonald supports that?

One way to look at Obergefell is that the Court found the right to marry to be a fundamental right which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to accord to same sex couples. This is much the same, in the most general and simplistic terms, as the Court finding in Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right; and the Court finding in McDonald that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it applies to the States.

What was generally not addressed in Obergefell was the nondiscriminatory application of regulatory requirements on marriage, e. g., requiring a license and, often, a blood test; requiring a license for which a fee is charged; requiring the recording of the certificate of marriage; permitting the marriage of persons only older than some specified age; etc.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This is starting to look pretty pointless. Let's see if anyone can give us a good reason to keep this open much longer.

 

[csmsss]

Agreed. I don't see how you get there from here, and certainly don't see anything in Obergefell that indicates that these five judges, all but one of whom voted AGAINST Heller, are predisposed toward bootstrapping this decision into any sort of blank check for the assertion of full faith and credit application for national carry reprocity.

 

[motorhead0922]

One way to look at Obergefell is that the Court found the right to marry to be a fundamental right which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to accord to same sex couples. This is much the same, in the most general and simplistic terms, as the Court finding in Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right; and the Court finding in McDonald that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it applies to the States.

I agree, Frank. That is exactly where people are pointing to in drawing the parallel between Right to Carry and Right to Marry.

(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy,

I find this to be very libertarian. Let me rephrase: Due process extends to personal choices about individual autonomy. To me, autonomy includes the ability to defend one's self.

An interesting argument is found here:
http://bearingarms.com/can-gay-couples-open-carry-ar-15s-washington-dc-result-obergefell/

 

[raimius]

There are some logical parallels to draw between 2nd Amendment rights and marriage. That said, I doubt it will go anywhere. Internal logic and plain reading of the law does not seem to be a higher priority than achieving socially preferred outcomes, to some.

 

[kilimanjaro]

We can draw all the parallels we want, but the fact is that SCOTUS has become a political arm of the state and will rule on the Second Amendment based on the personal politics of the Justices.

 

[ronl]

I too doubt that a similar approach toward the right to carry would be successful, even though the parallels to be drawn in the two cases should stand. The fact is that the bias of the judges would not allow them to accept the same line of reasoning and apply it in the case of right to carry. Let's face it, the legal line of reasoning in the gay marriage was a stretch of jurisprudence, to put it mildly. What bothers me much more is the decision in the Obamacare case. It never was intended for the high court to interpret a law and to decide what the legislative branch intended to say. That is a gross interpretation (mis) of the powers of the high court. If such reasoning is to be used, then the wording of the 2nd Amendment which is rather clear, coupled with the clear intent of the Founding Fathers, which is very abundant and precise, would render any attempt to limit gun rights as unconstitutional. We all know how that has turned out for the most part. The sad thing is that such creative renderings open the door for some very twisted justice. I was at first somewhat taken aback by the vitriolic dissent written by the four opposing justices, but as I began to think of the import of the decisions and the methods of reasoning, I do indeed concur that such harsh response is appropriate. The high court has been fundamentally changed by these two rulings, and its standing as a politically unbiased arbiter of the law can honestly be questioned. I think it bodes ill for all of us who own guns.

 

[Tom Servo]

I find this to be very libertarian. Let me rephrase: Due process extends to personal choices about individual autonomy. To me, autonomy includes the ability to defend one's self.

Unfortunately, the Court's application of the 14th Amendment has been terribly inconsistent. I'd suggest folks read up on the threads we had here during the leadup to the McDonald decision.

We had to fight tooth and nail to get them to grudgingly acknowledge that an enumerated right is incorporated against the states. It's hard not to suspect some bias when we compare that decision with Obergefell.

 

[JERRYS.]

We can draw all the parallels we want, but the fact is that SCOTUS has become a political arm of the state and will rule on the Second Amendment based on the personal politics of the Justices.

this, as shown by recent decisions.

 

[bandaid1]

http://www.guns.com/2015/06/27/how-the-same-sex-marriage-ruling-could-affect-gun-rights/

Whether the court will or won't take a 2nd Amendment case is a crap shoot these days, however as in the article about points out.

"The typical response to this is that gun rights affect other people. Indeed. But so does marriage. By definition, marriage is something we do with others. And the numbers about domestic violence are shocking. Our personal choices, whether to share our lives with a partner or to protect our lives with firearms, involve the potential for harm and abuse. But if we decide that rights can only be exercised if we like all the potential outcomes, we deny the most basic element of rights: individual choice. When I exercise a right, I’m expressing who I am."

This is the way to get the 14th Amendment to incorporate the 2nd in my opinion.

"If all states must respect marriage licenses issued by any state—licenses that permit the exercise of one protected right, however troubling that idea is—on what grounds can states refuse to honor another class of license that permits a different protected right? In other words, it seems Justice Kennedy just made sure my carry license applies in the entire United States."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...This is the way to get the 14th Amendment to incorporate the 2nd in my opinion...

That happened in 2010 -- McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

 

[Tom Servo]

This is the way to get the 14th Amendment to incorporate the 2nd in my opinion.

As Frank pointed out, it's been incorporated since 2010. There's a discussion about the case and its parameters here.

If you read the decision, the Court (by a grudging 5-4 margin) found that states must acknowledge the 2A.

And what's happened since? It's still nearly impossible to legally obtain a handgun in Washington DC or Chicago. New York, Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey have all passed laws that violate the spirit (if not exactly the letter) of the decision.

Furthermore, the lower courts have thumbed their noses at it. In one instance, the 7th Circuit openly chided SCOTUS' reasoning. What did SCOTUS do? Nothing. On the matter of carry outside the home, we've had several qualifying cases, but SCOTUS has refused to hear them.

I worry that we've heard the last from them on the RKBA issue for a while. Given the two cases at hand, I sadly hope we've heard the last from them for a while.

 

[ATN082268]

If you read the decision, the Court (by a grudging 5-4 margin) found that states must acknowledge the 2A.

Legally speaking, is there any difference between the States or the Federal Government abiding by the First or Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Is free speech more of a right than a right to bear arms?