Thoughts on National Reciprocity

Traveling from state to state with a firearm isn't easy, even among states that are relatively gun friendly. Unlike driver's licenses, carry permits are not universally recognized from one state to the next. The practice of recognizing permits from different jurisdictions is called 'reciprocity' and it creates headaches for law abiding gun owners. States do not have common practices in how they issue permits, but they will recognize permits from other states in a few ways:

• Outright recognition
• Outright denial
• Are permit issuance rules and practices from other states substantially similar to their own? 
• Are you a resident of the state that issued your permit? - some states will not recognize permits from states where you are not considered a resident. 

Reciprocity doesn't even mean full recognition of your right to carry. Illinois and Pennsylvania allow a permit holder from any state to carry a firearm in a vehicle, but have different rules for carrying on foot.

As a law abiding gun owner, it is paramount that you know where your permits are valid. There have been incidents in recent years resulting in felony charges for individuals that have never committed a crime in their lives just because they crossed a state line carrying a legally owned and carried firearm (in their home state). One of the most glaring examples of this kind of problem was a mother running an errand from Pennsylvania to New Jersey, got pulled over, informed the police officer that she was carrying a firearm, and promptly found herself under arrest for violating New Jersey's strict gun laws. As a rule, NJ never issues permits for self-defense to ordinary citizens and doesn't recognize any permit from any state. She was eventually released with time served by order of NJ's governor, so a felony still sticks to her record and she can never own a firearm again. 

Even in areas where gun laws are simpler, there are still plenty of gotchas. If you want to drive down the west coast from Washington to California and only have a Washington permit, it still gets complicated. Oregon and California do not recognize any state permits other than their own, so once you cross the Columbia River, Oregon requires any unlicensed carrier to have their firearms "in plain view or not readily accessible." If you travel through Portland it gets even more complicated as unlicensed carry is not covered by the state's preemption statute (at what level can cities and counties override state laws) so you are required to unload firearms and magazines to remain within the law. Once in California, you become subject to laws that govern what you can own and firearms need to be unloaded in a locked container to be legal.

The solution proposed by conservative lawmakers is what is called "national reciprocity." It would meant that any license issued in any state would be valid in any state provided the carrier was otherwise following the laws of the state you are in. It sounds like a simple solution. Situations like the ones described would no longer be an issue and would be a major victory for law abiding citizens. Except ... it isn't that simple. The only thing national reciprocity would allow is the ability to carry 'in accordance with state laws.' Gun free zones, use of force rules, and possession restrictions still apply. 

Don't expect anti-gun states and lawmakers to take such proposal lying down. They WILL find ways to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to carry a firearm (though law abiding citizens are certainly not the problem. It is not like your local thug will go through the effort of getting a government permit). If it advances the cause of limiting gun ownership and carry or at least keeps legislation in the courts for years, they will do it. They go to ridiculous lengths to push their agenda. The ballot initiative is a new mechanism to pass gun control under the guise of "public safety." Heck, they even advertise it as 'protecting gun rights.' If national reciprocity becomes law, look for the following:

• Near immediate lawsuit
• Tightening of possession regulations - magazine capacity bans, licensing, registration, etc.
• New lists of gun free zones
• Make it much more difficult to use a firearm in self-defense - why carry if you can't use it?
• People could be arrested under the state's current laws in an effort to force the issue through the courts; the average joe would have a hard time paying for any lengthy legal defense
• Precedent - if the federal government can make a rule involving firearm carry, they can try to pass laws setting standards for permit issuance (like Real ID); if a difficult standard exists (like CA, NY, or NJ) those practices could be standardized for issuing a permit nationwide. 
• Nullification - the practice of ignoring or circumventing federal laws a state doesn't like.

Throughout the country's history, states have been dragged kicking and screaming to follow laws that a particular region doesn't like. It took long legal fights and even civil disobedience to get some measure of compliance. To this day, states will try to find ways around established nationwide precedent. If states can fight for decades on issues like abortion or gay marriage (leftist issues) and still find loopholes, don't expect the opposing party to be ok with a national reciprocity law or even a Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun rights. 

National reciprocity would help the case of mere crossing a state boundary while carrying a firearm. While this would be a victory for gun owners, it is far from the end of complications for gun owners and legal battles in the legislature and courts.

It is IMPERATIVE that you know and understand the laws where you live and travel.