TexasCHLforum.com

1911 Raptor wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Correct. But you still have to meet the requirements of the state you’re driving in, even if your state doesn’t require inspection of the same things...

I fail to see your point. My truck does not have to meet CA's emissions standards when I'm vacationing out there and I'm not required to have it inspected while I'm there.

I do have to abide by the traffic laws and other stuff, but not everything.

It doesn't have to meet the special California emission standards because it is not registered there, but it IS required to meet the state safety standards even if they are stricter than Texas. If you have window tint darker than allowed in VA and you drive through there, you can get a ticket. If your car is "smoking" in CA you can get a ticket even if you have Texas tags. You must follow all the state laws of the state you are in.

This is not true in all cases. When I was stationed in California and had Texas Tags I was questioned about my window tint several times but never received a ticket because my vehicle had to conform to the rules of my state of residence (Texas) not California. I had Texas plates and registration and was not required to do yearly smog checks or any of the other crazy stuff that Californians had to do. My vehicle had to meet the requirements of Texas and that was it. I promise you if they could have given me a ticket for window tint they would have in a heartbeat.

When I was stationed in Virginia, they would have given me a ticket for window tint even though I had NC plates, but I had to take the tint off because in order to get on the Naval Base I had to have a current inspection sticker. I didn't have time to drive to NC to get one so I had to get a VA, hence lose the tint. California combines their inspection with registration (like Texas does now). Had you not been military, you would have been required to get California registration 30 days after entering the state. And, for example, if you have a muffler too loud for CA they will ticket you. CA allows for pretty dark tint, so I doubt you'd get pulled over if Texas allows slightly darker. In FL and some other states the cops carry meters that measure tint depth to see if it's compliant. It's all stupid, but technically states are under no obligation to recognize other states' driver's licenses or vehicle maintenance regulations, they just generally do for non-residents traveling through or temporarily visiting.

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Correct. But you still have to meet the requirements of the state you’re driving in, even if your state doesn’t require inspection of the same things...

I fail to see your point. My truck does not have to meet CA's emissions standards when I'm vacationing out there and I'm not required to have it inspected while I'm there.

I do have to abide by the traffic laws and other stuff, but not everything.

It doesn't have to meet the special California emission standards because it is not registered there, but it IS required to meet the state safety standards even if they are stricter than Texas. If you have window tint darker than allowed in VA and you drive through there, you can get a ticket. If your car is "smoking" in CA you can get a ticket even if you have Texas tags. You must follow all the state laws of the state you are in.

Pariah3j wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:We don't have reciprocity yet and I am not counting on it. Republicans seem to be all talk and no action. But be aware that some states have restrictions on the sale of certain firearms but that may not mean you can't carry them. California has a list of "compliant" guns that can be sold there. Massachusetts has restrictions on I believe trigger pull of certain guns. This is when you hate states rights. NJ has a ban on hollow points. I think even carrying ammo in DC is a crime.

Wouldn't even get close to passing in the Senate and even if it did would be held up by leftist "lawfare" and liberal judges until a new Democrat majority repealed it. There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in the regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.

But it is unconstitutional for States to not acknowledge documents from other States in good faith(ie Full Faith and Credit clause). Imagine if you had to take a driving test and get a drivers license for all 50 states? It is akin to the same thing, only its backed up by a constitutional right that driving isn't - so I don't see a National Reciprocity Bill being Government overreach, only enforcement of current constitutional guarantees/rights.

Driving Licenses do not have to be acknowledged by all states as they are not "official acts" in the definition applied to the "full faith and credit clause". It so happens that the 50 states DO recognize each other's licenses, but that is a function of individual states' laws and "compacts" that most states subscribe to. When I went to college in New York in the 1980's, Vermont was nearby. College students in Vermont from out of state were required to get a "non-resident" Driver's License after a certain period of time in VT even though they were not required to legally change their permanent residence from their home state. This was also back when it was legal to have multiple state driver's licenses and some truckers were required to have one in each state that they dropped or picked up in. For commercial interstate drivers the Feds got involved later to ensure that truckers could only get one. (They used to do what some handgun licensees do and get multiple in case one got revoked). Anyway, the point is, states are not constitutionally required to recognize other states' drivers licenses, and it is arguable whether it is constitutional for the Federal government to require it except perhaps for interstate commercial drivers.

Correct. But you still have to meet the requirements of the state you’re driving in, even if your state doesn’t require inspection of the same things...

treadlightly wrote:If it's going to be like driver's licenses and automobile registration, it should be none of a snowflake state's business how many rounds I load in a magazine.

My pickup has to meet Texas' requirements for a safety sticker, not (thank goodness) California's, even in the unlikely case I drive in California. My Texas-legal handgun should the be the same. It's legal for me.

And, of course, I believe in State's rights and State sovereignty. I just don't believe in State tyranny.

Actually you have to meet California safety requirements for operating a vehicle in California, they just don’t have a convenient way to check their requirements if your car is registered in Texas. Example would be window tint darkness, bumper height or other requirements that vary from state to state. In OK for example, you may not carry a handgun caliber greater than .45 IIRC...even though your Texas license is recognized by OK. And you may not open carry in FL even though you can in Texas.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:We don't have reciprocity yet and I am not counting on it. Republicans seem to be all talk and no action. But be aware that some states have restrictions on the sale of certain firearms but that may not mean you can't carry them. California has a list of "compliant" guns that can be sold there. Massachusetts has restrictions on I believe trigger pull of certain guns. This is when you hate states rights. NJ has a ban on hollow points. I think even carrying ammo in DC is a crime.

Wouldn't even get close to passing in the Senate and even if it did would be held up by leftist "lawfare" and liberal judges until a new Democrat majority repealed it. There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.

I would only point out that the state behavior we are looking at here meets both of your criteria that I bolded above. Right now, I can't drive through or even visit a state like New York unless I want to give up my civil rights.

I think the argument against reciprocity would be that each state is eligible to set its own criteria for eligibility/obtaining/carrying with, a carry permit and provided they don't unconstitutionally infringe on your rights. An example would be Illinois. It is possible for you to obtain a non-res Illinois permit, as some members of the board have done. So rather than forcing every state to regulate carry the same way, the Feds should concentrate on making sure that the States don't violate your rights in doing so. It is already legal to carry in DC and IL for a non-res...IF you obtain a permit, and if you follow their local restrictions. As to interstate commerce, you may travel through states with firearms, even in violation of local law, as long as you follow the rules in the state of departure and state of arrival (FOPA 1986). That is an example of the Feds properly exercising oversight of interstate commerce (i.e. travel).

rotor wrote:We don't have reciprocity yet and I am not counting on it. Republicans seem to be all talk and no action. But be aware that some states have restrictions on the sale of certain firearms but that may not mean you can't carry them. California has a list of "compliant" guns that can be sold there. Massachusetts has restrictions on I believe trigger pull of certain guns. This is when you hate states rights. NJ has a ban on hollow points. I think even carrying ammo in DC is a crime.

Wouldn't even get close to passing in the Senate and even if it did would be held up by leftist "lawfare" and liberal judges until a new Democrat majority repealed it. There's also the libertarian argument, which I somewhat subscribe to, that the Federal government should have no role in regulation of criminal enforcement powers of states, EXCEPT to the extent that they infringe on Constitutional rights of citizens or directly affect interstate commerce.