NY Attorney General on Reciprocity

Daedalus-NC

Proud Deplorable & Authorized Contrarian
Charter Life Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
1,119
Location
Lower Cape Fear, NC
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
The far-left Attorney General of New York slipped up. You will not hear about it from the so-called mainstream media, but here it is what he said:

A letter to lawmakers written by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and co-signed by 16 other Democratic state AGs cuts to the chase: “Rather than creating a new national standard for who may carry concealed firearms, these bills would elevate the lowest state standard over higher ones.”


It concludes: “these bills inevitably will lead to the death of police officers and civilians, the proliferation of gun traffickers, and acts of terrorism and other mass violence. Please do not let concealed carry reciprocity become the next federal loophole lamented in the aftermath of a tragedy.”

He let slip the liberal agenda to destroy your right to carry by creation of a 'Federal standard'.

As I have been saying since day one, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is all about eroding 2A rights and setting the stage for the Federal Government to define the rules concerning carry throughout the fifty states. Do not be lulled into a false sense of security because you may live in a jurisdiction that now allows you to own and carry firearms. That could well disappear when the Feds get their regulations, laws, taxes, additional requirements and mandates tunes up so Washington DC effectively eliminates your rights.

Contact your lawmakers and encourage them to vote NO on the act.

The complete article from the NY Daily News from which the above quote was extracted:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/reciprocity-pure-gun-insanity-article-1.3671067
 
As written, this bill requires me to only have on me to lowest capacity magazine of any state I will pass through while carrying. That mean no larger than a 10 round mag to the Northeast. No JHP defensive ammo through NJ. All my standard magazines must be empty, and locked a separate box from the ammo.
Or I'd have to buy a H&K VP9SK which only takes 10round standard mags (but fits the 30 round P30 mags) to avoid any possibility of grabbing the 12 instead of 10 for my P320 subcompact.
 
As written, this bill requires me to only have on me to lowest capacity magazine of any state I will pass through while carrying. That mean no larger than a 10 round mag to the Northeast. No JHP defensive ammo through NJ. All my standard magazines must be empty, and locked a separate box from the ammo.
Or I'd have to buy a H&K VP9SK which only takes 10round standard mags (but fits the 30 round P30 mags) to avoid any possibility of grabbing the 12 instead of 10 for my P320 subcompact.


This is no different than current reciprocity, you have to follow the laws of the state you are in.
 
My issue is more about the longer term impact vs. the admittedly immediate benefit.

Wondering now....... NJ states ammo and firearm must be out of reach and kept in separate containers. Would that standard still apply as the law is now written? Rather defeats the purpose
 
Last edited:
My issue is more about the longer term impact vs. the admittedly immediate benefit.

Wondering now....... NJ states ammo and firearm must be out of reach and kept in separate containers. Would that standard still apply as the law is now written? Rather defeats the purpose


That is for transport, you have to look at what their concealed carry permit allows their elite to carry when they get a concealed carry permit.
 
This is no different than current reciprocity, you have to follow the laws of the state you are in.
Except that it would force reciprocity on states that are unwilling to recognize CCW's from any other states.

Currently, I travel to NY and cannot carry. Under the reciprocity bill, I could carry in NY, albeit subject to the rules NY imposes on those lucky enough to be granted carry permits in that state.
 
Last edited:
Except that it would force reciprocity on states that are unwilling to recognize CCW's from any other states.

Yeah I know he was asking about state laws. If you go into a state now that honors a NC CHP then you have to follow their laws not NC laws.
 
Which is exactly my original point. Should the feds take over, you may find that you also can't leave your own property armed.
If we get to that point, we might as well start shooting and bring on civil war 2.0. Seriously. If that's the point we get to in this country, then it will be time to put the politicians and their enforcers down.

In the mean time it is asinine to sit with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing because OMG at some point in the future, someone may pass a "law" that is problematic... :eek:
 
The feds already got their nose under the tent, we don't need the rest of the stinky camel into the tent

6a00d8341fd10e53ef01bb0799d044970d-pi
 
Except that it would force reciprocity on states that are unwilling to recognize CCW's from any other states.

Currently, I travel to NY and cannot carry. Under the reciprocity bill, I could carry in NY, albeit subject to the rules NY imposes on those lucky enough to be granted carry permits in that state.
And that means no carrying in NYC because NY state law says the state permit is not legal in NYC.
 
As much as I value the 2A...I don't want to see any more power grab by the Fed. As soon as CCW becomes a national standard, that opens the door for a more restrictive environment when anti-2A factions are in power.
 
If we get to that point, we might as well start shooting and bring on civil war 2.0. Seriously. If that's the point we get to in this country, then it will be time to put the politicians and their enforcers down.

In the mean time it is asinine to sit with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing because OMG at some point in the future, someone may pass a "law" that is problematic... :eek:

Can we get a half-like button?

My biggest concern is in consolidation of power and the further eroding of the 10th Amendment.

As shitty as it may be, Tyranny must be resisted at it's start if at all possible, where it can be prevented from taking root (through precedent) at all.

Yes, it will be a boon to gun Rights in the short term. But the "abide by State law" peice will be used by anti States as a loophole to restrict carry (microstamping requirements, or any gun carried concealed must be a smartgun, etc).
 
So instead of foot stomping and saying no, present a solution.

States rights. We wring our hands when the feds make states do things we don't like, then beg them to get involved in things we like. Can't have it both ways. This worries me for a number of reasons, most of which have been covered. Leave it to the states. Traveling to other states you don't agree with is a choice, sometimes you don't have a lot of other choices but that's life. Let the citizens of those states fight it out.
 
Yes, it will be a boon to gun Rights in the short term. But the "abide by State law" peice will be used by anti States as a loophole to restrict carry (microstamping requirements, or any gun carried concealed must be a smartgun, etc).
Look at how it's been going down in Chicago and DC. You're correct in that these commie regimes will try to whittle away at carry as you describe. The process is such that one needs to fight those battles as they occur. As I've said before, it is better to pursue it in the legislature than in the courts, but undoubtedly this too will go to the courts. It would be better for it to occur with legislative precedent saying that a non resident has the same rights, or privileges, as a resident.

States rights. We wring our hands when the feds make states do things we don't like, then beg them to get involved in things we like. Can't have it both ways. This worries me for a number of reasons, most of which have been covered. Leave it to the states. Traveling to other states you don't agree with is a choice, sometimes you don't have a lot of other choices but that's life. Let the citizens of those states fight it out.
As I said in the other thread, I don't agree nor see this as a states rights issue simply because the states do not have the right to infringe like this. This is why I say that the fed has a duty to tell them they're in violation of the second. This is one of those few enumerated activities of the fed.
 
Last edited:
Amendment X of the US Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
Amendment X of the US Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Doesnt apply because the 2nd is an enumerated federal function.
 
As I said in the other thread, I don't agree nor see this as a states rights issue simply because the states do not have the right to infringe like this. This is why I say that the fed has a duty to tell them they're in violation of the second. This is one of those few enumerated activities of the fed.

Tell them they are in violation? Sure. Beat them unmercifully until they get in line? Sure. Make up the law and force it on the states? No.
 
Tell them they are in violation? Sure. Beat them unmercifully until they get in line? Sure. Make up the law and force it on the states? No.

As signators of the constitution, The state's agreed to abide with the supreme law of the land. They are in violation of the second amendment, plain and simple--shall not be infringed.
 
Tell them they are in violation? Sure. Beat them unmercifully until they get in line? Sure. Make up the law and force it on the states? No.
Unfortunately, having allowed the situation of setting permits for carry it effectively deals the cards in our hand to play with. I fully agree that there needs to be constitutional carry nationwide and absent all these magazine, ammo, and other infringements. The issue is how best to get there. Ultimately I think that as more and more states become permit-less for carry that this will in turn translate into it being the majority / default condition. In the mean time, this would begin to rectify one of the biggest issues (save the tactics the states will try). I think we need to deal with any "camel's nose" issues as they occur instead of letting the fear of them paralyze us from making progress. You win a football game by moving the ball down the field in several plays, not by consistently scoring upon the receive.

Not really; it's an enumerated restriction upon federal power.
Then we need to address the question of the constitution having been incorporated to the states. Personally, it seems logical to me that if something is a direct restriction on government at the federal level, it should also be prohibited at the state level.
 
Fed Law should simply say that each state must have reasonable rules for carry and must allow citizens of other states, who may carry legally within their home state, to carry in foreign states so long as they comply with the relevant law in that state.

There is no need for a federal law that creates a national license for carry or even sets guidelines.

That said, the AG letter is spot on, the qualification in AZ may be quite simple while the qualification in NY might be nearly impossible and yet NY will have to accommodate travelers. Where the argument falls apart is that their strict qualification is already an unlawful infringement, and the proper solution is to eliminate the restrictions rather than to impose them on other jurisdictions.
 
Amendment X of the US Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

While true, it is also true that states (Or counties or cities for that matter) cannot enact laws which are in violation of the protections in the US Constitution.

Just as states cannot pass laws which establish a religion, violate a person's rights in terms of protections from warrantless searches or cruel and unusual punishments, they cannot pass laws which violate the 2A, either.

In theory:)
 
While true, it is also true that states (Or counties or cities for that matter) cannot enact laws which are in violation of the protections in the US Constitution.

Just as states cannot pass laws which establish a religion, violate a person's rights in terms of protections from warrantless searches or cruel and unusual punishments, they cannot pass laws which violate the 2A, either.

In theory:)
I get it and moreover only a handful of states do not have the right to bear arms in their state constitution (I think the usual suspects: NY, NJ, CA, MD and maybe couple others are in that pool)
 
As signators of the constitution, The state's agreed to abide with the supreme law of the land. They are in violation of the second amendment, plain and simple--shall not be infringed.

That's where the beating unmercifully comes in IMO. It may be the feds job to make sure the states stay in line. But it's not their job to pass overarching laws to do it. Overarching fed laws are what got us here. Why are they the solution?

Remember Gay marriage? The second the state courts shot the laws down folks went out and got marriage licenses. That's NOT how that works. The court does not write law. There is a system in place for a reason. IMO the best way to sort this out is for the feds to pressure the states to get in line legislatively. Not override that. I wasn't happy about the marriage issue, and not real happy about this one either. Yes it sucks. Yes it's slow. But IMO it's the right way to go about it. Too bad nobody has the spine to do it. I doubt they have the spine to pass this either.
 
That's where the beating unmercifully comes in IMO. It may be the feds job to make sure the states stay in line. But it's not their job to pass overarching laws to do it. Overarching fed laws are what got us here. Why are they the solution?
Great point, we don’t really need any new federal law, we need federal courts that will tell the states when they have crossed the line. Of course we don’t have that, and I don’t know how we get that, next best thing is new federal legislation?
 
So instead of foot stomping and saying no, present a solution.
There is none. Why waste time pretending there is?
We already have the best solution and they have screwed that goose.

Shall not be infringed.

Why do I need any law other than the above?

ps ... when was the last time the modern political hacks gave us anything good.
 
Solution? Vote NO. Maintain your rights in NC and visit only free states. Keep the Feds as far away as humanly possible.

We aren't trying to solve world hunger here, folks. It's simple: say NO to any federal involvement (in anything).
 
Great point, we don’t really need any new federal law, we need federal courts that will tell the states when they have crossed the line. Of course we don’t have that, and I don’t know how we get that, next best thing is new federal legislation?

Rope
 
I still can't understand New Jersey's ban on hollow points.
Shows their lawmakers true ignorance on physics.
 
I just don't go to NJ.
Neither do I...until this past summer on a roadtrip to Maine. There's no practical way up the coast without eh NJ Turnpike. Otherwise, I'll never knowingly/willingly visit that dump hole. This is one instance where forced compliance with the 2A is a benefit.
 
Back
Top Bottom