TexasCHLforum.com

First I've heard f this

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04 ... oss-state/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

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.

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."

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.

I don't know how easy it is to find the history and progress of the movement now, and I wasn't overly aware of much of it when it was beginning to happen in the '90's, but I think an excellent parallel in our lifetimes would be the adoption of the Commercial Driver's License. Right, wrong, or indifferent (from a constitutional perspective), it's more-or-less apples to apples.

In years past an over-the-road trucker DID have to have several licenses from various states depending upon the various commodities they were hauling and the pickup/delivery points for their freight. Some states had reciprocity with others, while some did not. Some recognized "passing through" for reciprocity purposes, but required an in-state license if origin or destination was in their state.

We often saw 18-wheelers with half-a-dozen license plates on them as well (different issue, same effects) and drivers carried "bingo cards" with tax stamps from various states to handle the fuel taxes. It was an administrative nightmare. Frankly, it still is, but nothing like it used to be. Again, registration and fuel taxes are a separate issue, with similar results.

From a licensing perspective, it wasn't unheard of for a driver to get ticketed for operating without a license (or a proper-class license) while out of state, even though he/she was licensed in multiple other states. It also wasn't unheard of for a driver to accumulate too many "points" on a license from one state, and just put it away, and present a license from another state and keep on driving.

A "cheauffer's license" in Texas would perhaps let you drive a taxi or limo, but ALSO an 18-wheler, even though you had never actually sat under the steering wheel of a Kenworth. I'm an example of that...I grabbed the loophole when Texas first adopted CDL, and used my then-available farm-exemption to upgrade from a Class-C driver's license to a Class-A CDL, with all the endorsements except 'passenger.' At 19, having only driven farm trucks and trailers, I was legal to drag a set of triple-tankers hauling haz-mat. I was responsible, and didn't do it, but I was legal to do so...

Much of it has been fixed now. It's still a headache, and the Federal side regulates the states heavily on the CDL (thus the difference in licenses to this day) -- not really a good thing -- but the program is more uniform, the standards are similar state-to-state, and my license is good in all 50 states for the same sets of vehicles.

I don't condone EITHER program, or concept, but I do think that the CDL program provides us with a good insight to what could/will happen with the administration and implementation of a national reciprocity concept in CHL's.

I think it's an interesting parallel, and I'd like to hear some other people's take on it...

Any system left to the states will have differences. Any system left to the states overseen by the Feds will have anomalies. Any system left entirely to the Feds will be inefficient and an anomaly.

Every state requires a lawyer to graduate from law school, not necessarily in that state. Harvard grads can take the bar in CA, TX, AZ, etc. UT law grads can take a bar exam anywhere they chose. You have to be admitted in the state to practice before the courts of that state. Some bar exams are easier than others, apparently.

To be a lawyer employed by the US government, you have to be admitted somewhere. So, you take the District of Columbia bar exam, reputedly from what I hear, the easiest of all. Why risk taking and flunking the CA bar exam, supposedly one of the toughest? Once you are admitted to a bar anywhere , and have some experience, you can often be admitted in other states without taking that state's bar exam... not all, but many. One attorney I worked with has been admitted in several states now, AZ ,TX, CO without, as I understand it, taking exams in some of those states. A former partner left CA many years ago and moved to Oregon where he was admitted without taking their exam. It puts the onus on the lawyer to become competent and familiar with the laws. statutes and cases in that jurisdiction, which inevitably some take seriously, some do not.

Doctors who have been credentialed would have an easier time taking those skills and judgment from state to state.

Given the wide variation in laws in different states, national reciprocity would take some profound, and perhaps unwelcomed, adjustments.

i think its just an amendment they tacked on to kill the bill.

its common practice.

Last year the democrats tacked ona magazine cap ban onto the cyber security bill.

50 state reciprocity would a good thing, but i have to assume its a parlimentary tactic to kill the gun oppression bill.