Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 138 Posts

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
Gary, we might have a case heading to the Supreme Court this session stemming from a Massachusetts resident arrested back in 2004 in Washington D.C. who had a valid MA pistol license.
We might have National Reciprocity!
The Bruen decsion already gave us reciprocity, by incorporating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment into that decision.
Gary
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
Judge Suddaby I'm sure had an idea what he was going to express after the original decision. Again this is not good. Just like last time he is being pressured to find another ridiculous reason to close this down.
While I agree that Judge Suddaby has an idea of what he is going to say, in this decision, per the dicta in his original decision, he has no reason to flip, then rule against himself. I expect him to be not only consistent, in his thought pattern and ruling verbiage but to be very precise, in the way it's presented, so that NYS does not have room to say it says anything other than what I believe he intends: FULL STOP of CCIA. The only part I see him not destroying is the semi-auto rifle license, since it was not challenged, in this suit. He can't rule on an item not incorporated in the suit.
Gary
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
Exactly. Bruen didn’t give us reciprocity because that wasn’t all the issue in that case. But it did give us the basis for it for to be ruled on in a future decision.
It’s dangerous when people are telling us Bruen gave us unrestricted carry and national reciprocity because of the recent decision.
It is like Heller, when that decision came out we had the same belief it was going to give us unrestricted carry.
We have to be aware of the current state laws still in effect.
Folks:
The Bruen decision did give us national reciprocity, as well as unrestricted licenses. Please read that decision carefully. When SCOTUS incorporated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment into the decision, it made the status of having a handgun license or Constitutional carry recognizable in all 50 states, plus DC and all US possessions. NY and CA are choosing to ignore that, as well as other aspects of the decision but, nonetheless, both are fact.
Gary
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
Gary
All the reciprocity discussions and wish lists aside, can you explain why the Article IV section 1 of the Constitution, Full faith and credit, does not automatically create a defacto 50 state reciprocity the way it does with driver’s licenses and marriage licenses? Are those “reciprocities” created under some other rule?
Or should this be a separate thread?
Your question is an excellent one and, unfortunately, the answer, to your question, is complicated and lengthy, as I first had to explain the differences, between the application of the Full Faith Clause and the Equal Protection Clause but I've done my best, to answer it and clarify the two issues at the forefront. I've attached it, as a PDF, rather than try to keep all of the highlighted areas intact, in a long, text response, here.
Gary
 

Attachments

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
I know....that's what I wrote. My question was is there any precedent for that twist anyone is aware of.
There is no such precedent, from what I've been able to discover. Forcing a third party, to perform some positive act, before you can exercise your Constitutionally-protected right appears, on it's face, to be unconstitutional.
Gary
 
1 - 20 of 138 Posts
Top