And I agree, particularly since our founders saw fit to try to ensure that it wouldn't happen: "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."mr surveyor wrote:I always have a bad feeling about federal law trumping states laws (collectively). There's always some kind of "compromise", and many will experience a degradation of their rights, while only a few may see a tiny gain.
Unfortunately, there is a wealth of precedent for the feds to establish mutual reciprocity, just like in driver's licenses, and of course the 14th amendment.
I can recall incidents from my own youth, such as when commercial truck drivers were required to have multiple driver's licenses in order to pass through several different states and vehicle registrations in some states were not valid in other states.
I, myself, applied for and received a MA motorcycle license by "establishing" a home address there, my grandfather's house in Cape Cod where I had lived many summers and had received mail. I was then able to register and insure a motorcycle in MA, completely without my parents' knowledge, and ride it in NY (which had reciprocity) although that same license was no good in VT. NY at the time did not have a separate license or endorsement to ride a motorcycle, but due to my age I would not have been able to register a MC in NY without my parents' permission, and the way the law was read and interpreted at the time it was not a good idea to get stopped riding a MA MC with a NY DL.
Similarly, my cousin from NM came to visit with has parents in their Winnebago. In NM, he was licensed to drive a small motor scooter at the age of 15, and the family had brought it along, only to find that most other states did not recognize his license at all.
So, although I see reciprocity (or equal protection) as part of our federal constitution, that most or all of the states agreed to, as overruling the patchwork of gun laws e now have, I do hate to see it having to be made part of a law, especially one as onerous as the one it's being amended onto.
Of course there is the consideration that maybe the amendment will be objectionable enough to the anti-gun nuts that the entire law will not be passed.