HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » the irony of NY AGs lett...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:54 PM

the irony of NY AGs letter against National Reciprocity

The NY Attorny General sent a letter to Reid and McConnell opposing national reciprocity included this passage:

These two bills would force states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by any other states, even those with poor oversight and weaker permitting standards. These bills would create a lowest common denominator approach to public safety....

The irony is that, in my view, New York are one of the ones with weaker permitting standards.
From the best I can make of New York's law, New York has no standards other than the ability to convince the licencing authority of "need" and maybe have a lot of money. There doesn't seem to be a state level training standard, although a couple of counties do have training requirements. While the NY AG seems to be concerned about "Cletus and Leroy packing in the big city", I see Sean and Buffy packing in Cheyenne or Austin as a greater threat to public safety.
Why?
Guns are a part of Wyoming's culture (meaning people would learn safety etc at a younger age), and have a training requirement
Guns are also a part of Texas's culture, and have a fairly stringent training requirement
Guns are not part of New York's culture and training requirements vary by county from none to OK.
What do you think?
Was the NY AG projecting?
Would some vacationing yuppie or preppy panic at the first sight of wildlife and start blasting with his .25? (Being perfectly honest, that was my first thought when I heard it became legal to carry in national parks.)

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/robert-farago/ny-ags-letter-leads-the-charge-against-national-reciprocity/

28 replies, 2446 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply the irony of NY AGs letter against National Reciprocity (Original post)
gejohnston Dec 2012 OP
HockeyMom Dec 2012 #1
Piazza Riforma Dec 2012 #3
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #4
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #5
gejohnston Dec 2012 #9
Glassunion Dec 2012 #18
gejohnston Dec 2012 #7
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #16
hack89 Dec 2012 #19
PavePusher Dec 2012 #20
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #21
petronius Dec 2012 #22
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #24
petronius Dec 2012 #25
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #26
petronius Dec 2012 #27
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #28
gejohnston Dec 2012 #6
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #8
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #15
Clames Dec 2012 #2
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #10
gejohnston Dec 2012 #11
trouble.smith Dec 2012 #12
spin Dec 2012 #13
HockeyMom Dec 2012 #14
gejohnston Dec 2012 #17
gejohnston Dec 2012 #23

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:20 PM

1. Native New Yorker living now in Florida

where just about anything goes. My husband was very much restricted on his gun ownership for half a century living in NY.

So now that he lives in Florida and can easily access guns, he should be free to travel back to NY, which we do several times a year, with all these guns? No, no, NO. You abide by the laws of the state to travel to. END OF STORY.

BTW, I would STOP him from doing this if it becomes the law; me, or your guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:43 PM

3. It's all about "State's Rights"

 

until it comes to guns. Then they feel they should be able to disregard state law without consequence. The Heller decision, which most of the proponents of these laws cite, DID NOT specifically preclude states from refusing to recognize out of state CCW permits. This is just another attempt by the gun lobby and their allies in Congress to force states to bow to their will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:57 PM

4. I tend to agree.

I think the 2A guarantees more liberal carry rights than NY or MD have, but it irritates me that the forced reciprocity crowd wants to take away our power to regulate how it's done altogether. Some states favor no permit requirement at all -- it works for them. Others run a background check and then issue a card. Fine, too. Still others have a training requirement. Keen. It should be up to us to decide how (not whether) citizens are able to carry firearms in our state. Otherwise every requirement goes out the window, and it's a race to the bottom to collect non-resident permit fees.

Just to clarify: Heller wasn't about carry at all. It would've been bizarre for SCOTUS to comment on any issue relating to carry permits at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:06 PM

5. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:22 PM

9. Everyone will just get one from PA

from what I can find, it seems to be the bottom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:59 AM

18. I resemble that remark...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:15 PM

7. who is "they"?

There are no Republicans here. Maybe a few Blue Dogs, but I agree there is hypocrisy, but so is "it's all about federalism unless it comes to guns." Unless it is covered by the Full Faith and Credit clause, I think it goes against our federal system. I frankly have the same problem with the "national" drinking age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:41 AM

16. "They" are hanging out in Walmart parking lots.

Basking in the glow of the Majic Gun Force Field.

National reciprocity is not high on my list of things needing change, either. What bothers me is running afoul of some state (or locality's) laws or practices. Unless there is a compelling full faith & credit argument to be made, reciprocity can wait. Alternatively, states could agree on model legislation which could "standardize" imterstate recognition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:20 AM

19. Would you support forcing states to bow to your will

when it comes to marriage equality or abortion rights?

I agree with you that states rights are bad - Constitutional rights should not vary significantly from state to state. States should be able to offer more expansive rights but never the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:24 AM

20. All COnstitutional Rights should be equal in every state. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:15 PM

21. I don't see what you are saying.

 

>It's all about "State's Rights" until it comes to guns.

I don't see what you are saying here.

I suspect most of us believe that people should be able to marry whoever they want in every state in the Union. No state should be able to abrogate that right. Likewise I don't think you will find many supporters of laws like my state just passed that rejects a national health care plan.

I don't think you will find any support for individual states to allow slavery, or other civil rights travesties.

But likewise, no state should be allowed to disregard the second amendment, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:21 PM

22. No state should be allowed to ignore any part of the Constitution, but to the extent

that a restriction is Constitutional, no state should be required to abide by another state's less (or more) stringent decisions about the process or limitations.

I don't agree that any of those examples are truly analogous, because in each of them inter-state reciprocity is not the real issue. With marriage, for example, I would argue that marriage itself is a civil liberty that no state should be allowed to deny based on sex or orientation. Reciprocity is a moot point when the denying states are already on unconstitutional grounds (which I hope and suspect will be be made clear by the Courts eventually). Although pushing for marriage reciprocity is clearly a tactic in the drive toward marriage equality, it doesn't provide a good analogy for other topics.

A second difference between marriage and CCW, in my opinion, is the nature of the state action. A CCW permit (like a drivers license or a fishing license) is a grant of permission to perform a continuing action within the state. A marriage license is a recognition of a status or a condition - not an act or a behavior. I'm far from a Constitutional scholar, but it would make sense to me that a marriage license should be subject to the full-faith-and-credit clause, that's less clear to me in the case of a permit.

And a third point, I guess, is that there's no good reason to conclude that, because one thing is treated a certain way, all things must be treated the same way. It's basically the 'we register cars so lets register guns' argument.

In the case of RKBA, no state should be allowed to violate the BoR, but it is generally agreed that all rights are subject to reasonable restriction. Controls on CCW, as far as I know, have been allowed by the Courts. So, if a state chooses to enact reasonable and Constitutional restrictions within its own borders, I see no reason why it should be required to follow other states' laws in the case of visitors...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:53 AM

24. They should be consistent.

 

In the case of RKBA, no state should be allowed to violate the BoR, but it is generally agreed that all rights are subject to reasonable restriction. Controls on CCW, as far as I know, have been allowed by the Courts. So, if a state chooses to enact reasonable and Constitutional restrictions within its own borders, I see no reason why it should be required to follow other states' laws in the case of visitors...

Why not? It's already hinted at from the states that publish the data that CCW permit holders from those states are hardly ever involved in crime - any kind of crime. I bet this is universal - the only people who go to the trouble and expense to comply with a voluntary exercise like getting a CCW permit are people with clean criminal and mental health backgrounds to begin with and who are very fastidious about following laws like the one that requires getting a permit to carry a gun.

Given the low-risk nature of such individuals, why hassle them as they travel between states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:16 PM

25. It's a question of the appropriate level of jurisdiction. If we accept that it is a state

responsibility to license and oversee these activities within the border of the state - and that seems to be a general consensus - then it's not the prerogative of the federal government to undercut the state's decisions without a compelling national interest (and spinning neither the Commerce Clause nor the 14th Amendment really provides that interest) or clear federal authority.

The consistency comes in at the level of Constitutional limits, no state can go beyond what the BoR allows, but other than that there's no reason that all states should manage their internal affairs in the same way.

Some states' policies may be ineffectual, onerous, or just plain stupid, but it is the state's judgment to make, IMO...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:02 PM

26. But we have universal driver's license reciprocity.

 

People with CCW permits are probably going to cause less trouble than car drivers.

If reciprocity is OK for driver's licenses, there is probably no risk in allowing it for CCW permit holders.

You are going to end up with far more traffic law breaking from out-of-state drivers than you will have law breaking from out-of-state CCW permit holders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:57 PM

27. As I understand it though, driver's license reciprocity is agreed on between

the states, not mandated by the federal government. And I'd feel the same for DLs as for CCWs: if State X distrusted (for reasons not Constitutionally prohibited) State Y's DL administering procedure, then State X should be allowed to decline recognition.

I agree with you that CCW-holders from any state are unlikely to be a problem. I also agree in principle with the goal of expanding CCW rights in many states (mine included), and I see that this reciprocity bill is a tactic toward that end. And I can sympathize with traveling CCW-holders who may be irritated or inconvenienced. However, I can't agree that any of that provides a valid basis for a federal law undermining the right of states to make Constitutionally valid laws governing activities and behaviors inside the state. If it's a federal responsibility then we should have national-level CCW; if it's a state responsibility then it needs to be left to the states...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:13 PM

28. I think the key to all of this is more uniform CCW standards.

 

If the CCW standards were more uniform, I suppose this would not be an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:07 PM

6. Native Wyomingite living in Florida

I find Florida laws kind of strict in comparison. My point is New York's restrictions are based on arbitrary rules set in 1911 with no objective criteria even for training. The only requirement is bullshitting the licensing authority and having money, but not learning how to safely handle it in a culture where one is not likely to learn it as a kid.
That is why a New York permit is not valid in Wyoming. Come to think of it, a NY CCW isn't valid in Florida either. You might want to mention it to him.
That is why I found the NY AG's letter so amusing.
Having restrictions is one thing, but not having any objective standards based for public safety while looking down on states that do is quite another.

No, no, NO. You abide by the laws of the state to travel to. END OF STORY.

So, if some hick cop near Jackson Hole busts Howard Stern for illegal concealed carry (Stern has one for NYC, which is not valid in Wyoming), or/and possessing in a bar, you would be OK with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:19 PM

8. And when my fellow washingtonians travel to a state that doesn't have same-sex marriage?

'just visiting' takes on a different meaning, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:29 AM

15. Should "anti-gay rights" states govern your travel plans/behavior?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:31 PM

2. If that letter is used for toilet paper...

 

...it's a better use than it deserves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:43 PM

10. There should definitely be national reciprocity

 

but, IMHO, it should require 12 hours of firearms safety/handling training and that you be able to legally purchase a firearm, own a firearm, and carry a firearm. This should insure that everyone is in compliance with everyone else's CCW laws. I wouldn't want to add any other legal requirements or disqualifiers beyond that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:48 PM

11. I'm not saying I'm for or against national reciprocity,

but simply find it interesting that an AG of a state that has no objective public safety standards for CCW, is complaining about those who do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:23 PM

12. Robert De Niro has a permit to carry a concealed handgun in NYC. We should ask him how he got it.

 

If he won't talk, we can ask Donald Trump because he managed to get one too somehow. So did Howard Stern. We should ask him, he loves to talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:05 AM

13. In New York City money and fame means you are a better person than the average ...

working guy who happens to live in a dangerous neighborhood. We all know that Trump, Stern and Imus are superior to us and they should have the right to carry while we can't.

I should note that I have absolutely no problem with members of the 1% having license to carry. I just believe that in a nation with our values a city or state should be allowed to blatantly discriminate in this manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:25 AM

14. High Profile Celebs

not merely the 1%? That might be key because some nut might want to kill them, i.e., like Lennon.

Anyway, even if they have these permits they are still not allowed to take them into certain places, like landmarks, in the City. When I served on a jury (LI), everyone entering the courthouse had to go through a metal detector, including the attorneys and judges. The lawyers gave their guns to the officer at the desk. Obviously, they had CCW but they were not allowed them in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:55 AM

17. any one percenters

in NYC, including the publisher of the Times.
BTW, Florida doesn't allow weapons in court houses either. When I did jury duty, none of the lawyers carried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread