TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote:I am certain the NRA has the same concerns as we do, and thanks to the NRA we have the ability to fight efforts to sabotage this bill. I would like to see national reciprocity but I will call for the bill to be killed should it be butchered in an unacceptable manner, just like I suspect the NRA would. Right now this bill looks to be a good thing, there is potential for bad things to be added and I promise that before it is over there will be attempts to do so. With that said this bill on it's own has minimal odds of becoming law because the White House will most likely veto it, as an amendment to a bill the president feels he can't live without we have a chance to get what we want. My thoughts on this particular bill go further than that, but I'm enjoying stirring the pot too much to give all my thoughts away right now.

If Obama signs it I'll take it as evidence that the Bill is actually a Trojan Horse for the anti-gunners. No doubt we need the NRA --I'm a member. But the NRA is not all powerful. I'm actually less concerned about the Bill that might pass now --I'm much more concerned about the precedent and how the Bill may be altered in the future. The left, however much they may oppose it now, and however sincere the opposition, will take their broken eggs and make an omlette with them --incrementally amending it to minimize opposition at each step.

Beiruty wrote:If this is NRA supported why the fear?

The NRA is a national organization, is it not? Why then are there states with laws like California, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois? Apparently the NRA's ability to influence gun law is limited. Their power to affect legislation is likely somewhat in proportion to the number of people it effects. CC affects a small number of gun owners --most gun owners probably don't care about CC, since they're not getting licenses themselves-- so the political calculus will be different in the longer run. Reciprocity will come at a cost. The NRA may believe it is worth the cost. Maybe it will be, but I fear it won't.

Look at my list of possible restrictions and tell me which of them non license holders, the general public, and anti-gunners will consider to be "unreasonable"? I submit that adding such restrictions to Federal reciprocity requirements will not be politically difficult to do.

Here are some things that could come with Federal involvement (skipping the whole issue of State's rights, and assuming that reciprocity won't be used as a pretext to eliminate carry or shall issue):

liability insurance requirement with a coverage minimum
increased licensing fees (if for no other reason than to pay for the increased cost of federal mandates)
restrictions on magazine capacity
limit on the number of magazines you can carry (probably to the one in the gun)
ammo restrictions --e.g., no HP or hand-loads
caliber restrictions --these could be anything, but for instance, no "Judge" because it shoots shotgun rounds
limit on the number of guns you can carry --forget about a BUG
limit and ID of the type of gun you can carry --for instance, you say you're going to carry a 1911, it will be on the license, and you can't carry anything else
additional instruction and proficiency requirements
publication of the names of license holders

Initially, any such restrictions probably won't be "required," but if the State doesn't adhere to the Federal "guidelines," its license won't grant reciprocity, so any gain to carry, say in New Jersey --something most of us will never do anyway because we will never voluntarily go to New Jersey-- will come at a cost where you do carry, or you'll lose existing reciprocity.

C-dub wrote:If the fed put restrictions or requirements on the driver's licenses I am unaware of them.

I thought I posted something earlier this morning in this thread from my phone, but I guess it didn't make it through. I had mused that we always seem to like it when a state has pre-emption, but now that the fed is trying to have pre-emption we're a bit skeptical. I understand why, but this still seems like a good thing to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Federally mandated standards for state driver's licenses or ID cards

Driver's license implications

The REAL ID Act's implications for driver's licenses and ID cards is detailed in Title II of the Act. Title II of REAL ID — “Improved Security for Driver’s License and Personal Identification Cards” — repeals the driver's licenses provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act,[14] also known as the "9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004", that was enacted in December 2004. Section 7212 of that law established a cooperative state-federal process, via a negotiated rule-making procedure, to create federal standards for driver’s licenses.

Instead, the Real ID Act directly imposes specific federal driver’s license standards.

The REAL ID Act Driver's License Summary[15] details the following provisions of the Act's driver's license title:

Authority
Data Retention and Storage
DL/ID Document Standards
Grants to States
Immigration Requirements
Linking of Databases
Minimum DL/ID Issuance Standards
Minimum Standards for Federal Use
Repeal of 9/11 Commission Implementation Act DL/ID Provisions
Security and Fraud Prevention Standards
Verification of Documents

After 2011, "a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements" specified in the REAL ID Act. The DHS will continue to consider additional ways in which a REAL ID license can or should be used for official federal purposes without seeking the approval of Congress before doing so. States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and IDs, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. The federal Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security check-in at airports, so bearers of non-compliant documents would no longer be able to travel on common carrier aircraft without additional screening unless they had an alternative government-issued photo ID.[16]

People born on or after December 1, 1964, will have to obtain a REAL ID by December 1, 2014. Those born before December 1, 1964, will have until December 1, 2017 to obtain their REAL ID.[17]

The national license/ID standards cover:

EconDoc wrote:If the feds can force one state to accept another state's CHL, then they have both the authority and a reason to force all states to accept "national standards" on who can have a CHL. If they force "shall issue" that would be very good, but, if they require "may issue with good cause" then it could wipe out 25 years of nationwide progress on CHL in a stroke. My opinion is that is exactly what the anti-gun crowd would try to do, and it would be more difficult to combat if we had nationwide reciprocity by federal law. Think this through and keep in mind that the anti's have already introduce such a nationwide "may issue with good cause" bill in congress.

Exactly, they have virtually no chance of getting their way on the state level since they'd have over 27 separate battles to fight against the odds. This bill is a Trojan Horse for the anti-gunners no matter what the original motivation was and they will use it to attack and roll back CC.

EconDoc wrote:It seems to me that, if this bill become law, then NYC will have to recognize a Texas CHL as valid. I can predict what will happen. Congress critters from NY, NJ, California, Illinois, and several other states with either no CHL or highly restrictive, "may issue" licensure will argue that this law makes it necessary to establish "national standards" for issuance of CHL's. Now, just what standards do you think that the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, et. al. would want promulgated? Elimination of "shall issue" would be first on the list, and all of the work of the last 25 years, getting "shall issue" in many states, would go down the drain. If a state didn't go along with the standards, they might lose federal "aid", i.e. money, for law enforcement, and their licenses would be void outside their state borders. How long would any state hold out?

We don't need to give the feds any more excuses to get involved in this area. My humble opinion.

You nailed it. That's exactly what will happen. And the anti-gun crowd has already floated the notion of national CHL standards.