TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:Something to think about with a National Reciprocity bill. . . . .

For better or for worse, even if a bill like that passes, states are still allowed to set their own laws about things like magazine capacity. I'd love it if a reciprocity bill made it legal for me to carry whenever I visit family back in California, but they have a 10 round magazine capacity limit there, so I would still have to either carry one of my 10 round or less capacity guns, OR carry my regular carry guns with mags restricted to 10 rounds. My Glock 19 is legal to own in California, but only with 10 round mags. That means that unless I had the standard capacity mags stashed somewhere in Arizona while I was in California, so I could pick them up on my way back home, I'd be restricted to 10 rounds or less for the entire trip.

So just because you'll be able to carry a gun in a gun-unfriendly state, that doesn't mean that you'll be able to carry your regular carry piece in that state.

You are right. And NJ today would put you in jail over the possession of JHP ammo so there are a lot of aspects to consider with this. As we found with "fines for signs" and places like the Ft. Worth Zoo, those who wish to restrict concealed carry will go to ridiculous lengths to prevent it and I would expect National reciprocity to be no different. NY, NJ, MD, CT and other Progressive strongholds will find dozens of ways to try to stop us from carrying in their States. Hopefully, carefully crafted legislation could help us. California has unique restrictions on cars sold there but, driving through, I don't have to have my vehicle modified to meet them.

I certainly don't see National reciprocity as a singular fix. I am one who believes that the xenophobes will always have their panties in a twist over something. I would prefer to give them as many "somethings" as we can because, after a certain amount of wailing, their resistance starts to wear even those who are not directly affected. We've played defense for a long time. I'd like to see some more bold offense. The retired NYC LEO in the OP should not be the only one who can defend themselves in Northern NJ.

Jeff B. wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:I generally believe that the Federal government should stay out of the concealed handgun licensing. But NJ is one of the places where the proposed National reciprocity would help a lot. We lived not far from Newark and found it to be a cesspool of gun crime then. The Liberal legal establishment in NJ, however, looks the other way when it comes to criminals from the Newark 'hood and crucifies anyone else found with a handgun. I will say that NJ LE tries to keep the vermin in Newark from spreading too far outside of that city. I had to drive to Newark airport a lot from further West. I knew that I was probably OK if I stayed away from the city itself.

I agree with this.

A blanket reciprocity sounds great. Allowing the nose of the Federal Camel into the Concealed Carry tent is, IMO, unwise.

Consider that IF Obama had the ability (or precedent, even remotely conjured) he'd have banned concealed carry by civilians.

How many of you really expect Trump to win on election day morning? I was very concerned that we were going to have to deal with an all out assault on our 2A rights by Clinton & Company.

I think we should stick to what we have today. If the citizens of the NE. Kalifornia, etc., want to live as serfs, that's their business. It becomes a different story when they through their Representatives want us to join them on their knees.

Jeff B.

Charles has cleared the air on Federal concealed reciprocity and possible negative consequences, at least for me. I do not believe that NJ will allow any one but the well connected politically to ever defend themselves without a Federal law. And regarding, Cali, as long as the citizens there are still citizens of the United States, I don't believe that those who wish to be able to defend themselves under the 2nd Amendment should be denied that right just because a majority of their State peers want that ban. That is a very slippy slope, IMHO. Constitutional rights under the Constitution are not subject to even State votes. Manage anything else anyway that you want at the State level but leave the Bill of Rights alone. I think Cali is very close to obsoleting the BORs in several areas. If they secede, as some of them now want to do, that is a different story. Then they can rule themselves in whatever manner that they choose.

I don't want to stick with what we have today. I want Maryland to be at least at the same level as Illinois, allowing CC in a vehicle. I have to drive through about 15 miles of that decrepit place on I-81 and have always been concerned, because of my Texas plates, that following FOPA wouldn't even be enough. NJ and NY are big obstacles to visiting some places that I'd like to see. And I really want to hear the pipe organs at Methuen and 1st Church (Christ Scientist) in Boston. The National reciprocity would make that possible for me.

Also from the article

We’re glad that these two criminals are off the street, but wish all New Jersey citizens had the practical right to bear arms, and not just a favored few in protected classes.

That pretty much sums up NJ and NJ concealed carry. Politicians and the politically connected are the protected class.

I generally believe that the Federal government should stay out of the concealed handgun licensing. But NJ is one of the places where the proposed National reciprocity would help a lot. We lived not far from Newark and found it to be a cesspool of gun crime then. The Liberal legal establishment in NJ, however, looks the other way when it comes to criminals from the Newark 'hood and crucifies anyone else found with a handgun. I will say that NJ LE tries to keep the vermin in Newark from spreading too far outside of that city. I had to drive to Newark airport a lot from further West. I knew that I was probably OK if I stayed away from the city itself.