Reciprocal and Unilateral

[BMWGSRider]

I am still learning the ropes so I apologize in advance if this is posted in the wrong forum and/or sounds "dumb" on my part...

Reading the Texas DPS website it talks about Reciprocal and Unilateral: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... rocity.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can one please explain Reciprocal and Unilateral so I can understand it better...

Thanks in advance.

[cbr600]

deleted

[OldCannon]

Some folks have a hard time understanding why it's not always reciprocal, so I'll give an example:

In Texas, if you are under 21, you may STILL be a CHL holder if you are a member of the armed forces (or honorably discharged). In the state of Washington, this is a big no-no. However, Texas unilaterally recognizes Washington CCL. If Washington recognized the Texas CHL, they would be allowing somebody to carry in a way that could genuinely get them arrested (conflicting laws like that are considered very bad by prosecutors, but trial lawyers love them )

If you're a Texas resident, you cannot concealed carry in Washington with your Texas CHL. You would need a license from Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, or (obviously) Washington,

[Dave2]

If you're a Texas resident, you cannot concealed carry in Washington with your Texas CHL. You would need a license from Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, or (obviously) Washington,

I understand why they wouldn't recognize it they had a problem with our training, but it seems like they could easily reciprocate provided that the person was at least 21. We've gotta look up reciprocity when we want to CC out of state anyway.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here's a very condensed history on reciprocity in the Texas Gov't Code. When CHL passed in 1995, DPS was responsible for negotiating reciprocity agreements. The laws of the other state has to be as stringent as Texas law or more so. The combination of the legal requirement and extreme reluctance of one particular attorney at DPS resulted in only 6 or 7 reciprocity agreements with other states.

We changed the law (I can't recall when,but I think 2003) reducing the legal requirements for obtaining reciprocity. (It was further reduced in 2005.) The bill also shifted responsiblity for negotiating reciprocity agreements from DPS to the Governor, after he receives an annual report from the Attorney General. The bill also requires the Governor to issue unilateral recognition proclamations if reciprocity agreements cannot be obtained. The combination of Gov. Perry and AG Greg Abbott resulted in a huge increase in reciprocity agreements.

Some people understandably don't like issuing unilateral proclamations recognizing licenses from states that don't recognize a Texas CHL. It is irritating, but I still think we did the right thing in the bill. New York residents should not be penalized and disarmed in Texas simply because their state government won't recognize a Texas license.

Chas.

[RoyGBiv]

Is the lack of reciprocity from some shall-issue states due to our issuing CHL's to under-21 military?
Are there other "major" reasons?

If our under-21 rules are the reason, it would be nice if those other states could offer reciprocity "if the license holder is at least 21"... This would be an easier carve out than amending each state to match TX.. and a step forward at least..

[Ameer]

Is the lack of reciprocity from some shall-issue states due to our issuing CHL's to under-21 military?
Are there other "major" reasons?

If our under-21 rules are the reason, it would be nice if those other states could offer reciprocity "if the license holder is at least 21"... This would be an easier carve out than amending each state to match TX.. and a step forward at least..

It's an excuse, not a legitimate reason. The drinking age in British Columbia is 19. If a 19 year old from Vancouver goes to Seattle, he can't legally purchase alcohol because the age limit is 21 in Washington State. They could do the same thing with concealed carry if they wanted. It also makes you wonder if they refuse to recognize LEOSA from states that have cops under 21.

[Dave2]

It also makes you wonder if they refuse to recognize LEOSA from states that have cops under 21.

I don't wonder that. Federal law trumps state law.

[Ameer]

In that case, the constitution trumps federal law, so LEOSA and most (all?) federal gun laws are null and void.

[ELB]

... It is irritating, but I still think we did the right thing in the bill. New York residents should not be penalized and disarmed in Texas simply because their state government won't recognize a Texas license.

Exactly right. Issuing unilateral recognition is not being a "sucker;" however, refusing to implement unilateral recognition would be serving the will of oppressive states such as New York.

[Dave2]

In that case, the constitution trumps federal law, so LEOSA and most (all?) federal gun laws are null and void.

The constitution says that the feds can't specifically allow LEOs and (most) retired LEOs to carry their guns? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know why you'd be right.

Unless you were making a point that laws restricting gun keeping & bearing go against the 2nd Amendment*, in which case I would argue that reasonable restrictions are fine**; much like it's illegal to yell "fire" in a theatre even though the 1st Amendment says you can. The counterpoint that you or someone else will undoubtedly come back with is, "What about the 4th or 5th Amendments? I betcha don't support "reasonable" restrictions on those, do you?" (I don't). And you'd be right. There's an inconsistency in my logic somewhere that I'm still trying to work through. I suspect the root of it might be that "reasonable" is not a particularly objective word. Hmm... I'll have to think about this some more.

*How weird is that... I capitalized "Amendment" by default, but I haven't felt the need to capitalize "constitution". Maybe because "Amendment" explicitly refers to a specific amendment -- the 2nd one (See? I didn't feel like capitalizing "amendment" that time), but so far I've merely been implying which constitution we're talking about.

For being such a grammar nazi, I sure am letting myself down today.

**I would also argue that a lot of the famous ones aren't reasonable, though.

[megs]

In that case, the constitution trumps federal law, so LEOSA and most (all?) federal gun laws are null and void.

The constitution says that the feds can't specifically allow LEOs and (most) retired LEOs to carry their guns? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know why you'd be right.

Where does the constitution say they can?

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.

So unless the constitution delegates that power to the feds, it's not constitutional for the feds to do that.

[Dave2]

In that case, the constitution trumps federal law, so LEOSA and most (all?) federal gun laws are null and void.

The constitution says that the feds can't specifically allow LEOs and (most) retired LEOs to carry their guns? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know why you'd be right.

Where does the constitution say they can?

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.

So unless the constitution delegates that power to the feds, it's not constitutional for the feds to do that.

Oooh, good point. I think that if you accept that federal laws restricting the 1st Amendment aren't unconstitutional, then neither are the laws restricting the 2nd Amendment. I dunno... maybe there's some legal principle at play here that I don't know about or fully understand... or maybe the States should be responsible for the free speech laws.

[Charles L. Cotton]

In that case, the constitution trumps federal law, so LEOSA and most (all?) federal gun laws are null and void.

Not until the U.S. Supreme Court says so.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

In that case, the constitution trumps federal law, so LEOSA and most (all?) federal gun laws are null and void.

The constitution says that the feds can't specifically allow LEOs and (most) retired LEOs to carry their guns? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know why you'd be right.

Where does the constitution say they can?

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.

So unless the constitution delegates that power to the feds, it's not constitutional for the feds to do that.

The constitutional authority for LEOSA is the Commerce Clause. It's been so perverted that just about anything the U.S. Congress wants to do will be found constitutional, if it based upon the Commerce Clause. The only remaining hope is to argue that a particular law invades the police powers of the states. LEOSA just might do that, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Chas.