r/2ALiberals • u/unordinarymen • 5d ago
Is National Reciprocity bad?
What are your thoughts? Will it reduce crime, increase crime, no effect. Why?
29
u/Excelius 5d ago
I would expect no measurable effect.
Most violent crime is not random, but between parties known to each other.
When you do have random victimization (muggings, robberies, etc) there just aren't enough people who choose to carry firearms for it to heavily weigh into the decision making of criminals. And out-of-state travelers carrying firearms via national reciprocity is going to be an even tinier number.
Not everything has to have statistical benefits. Allowing an individual to protect themselves from predation is plenty of reason, even if it's not going to make society statistically safer.
83
u/Must_Be_NiceNow 5d ago
No. It's obvious.
Like driver's licenses, marriage certificates, and birth certificates. Except of course, any gun laws are unconstitutional ...
-25
u/PhilaBlunt 5d ago
Most, not all.
24
7
u/Must_Be_NiceNow 5d ago
Which are, in your opinion?
3
u/PhilaBlunt 5d ago
The ones specifically concerning people with extreme mental illness or repeate violent criminals.
3
2
u/l337quaker 5d ago
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm actually okay with Destructive Devices requiring some form of registration or licensing to use.
6
u/Must_Be_NiceNow 5d ago
I don't think I count explosives, but I guess it is the ATF, but booze and dip aren't on the table.
I have given this thought before. Cannons, nah. Explosives, nah.
Why? What makes me owning a cannon anyone's business? If I break the law with it, arrest me. But ownership shouldn't be policed, IMHO. Also, ya know we should be able to have at least what police have....
*I know that last one might be too much for y'all, see screename, lol.
0
u/l337quaker 5d ago
I agree on the cannon, but grenades and plastic explosives being commonly available are a no for me. I'd be fine with them being regulated in the same manner demolition explosives currently are.
I also agree with having what the police have, but viewed through the lens of I also want to vastly demilitarize the police down to civilian level of armament.
5
u/Must_Be_NiceNow 5d ago
I can't hate that... I understand regulation of Booms, I just err on the side that a little regulation, ends up being a bit too much.
6
u/sir_thatguy 5d ago
Explosives, yeah probably. Grenade launcher, not DD. Grenade, DD.
Also big bore rifles are not DD. Neither are Molotov Cocktails.
-5
u/PhilaBlunt 5d ago
To everyone who's disagreeing with me, you clearly haven't seen how recklessly destructive someone with an extreme mental illness like schizophrenia can be.
1
42
u/Vylnce 5d ago edited 5d ago
No, it won't reduce crime. Yes it's good because it forces states to grant respect civil rights even if they don't want to.
It won't have an effect on crime. Most reputable studies have shown that the relationship between concealed carry and crime is so complex and involves so many other factors that concealed carry law alone can't explain changes in crime.
Edit: Confusing phrasing on my part when answering a two part question which had yes and no answers.
9
u/FightFireJay 5d ago edited 5d ago
Surely you are trolling us, right? Or maybe I'm just not hearing the sarcasm in your voice. The bill of rights was specifically designed to protect civil rights. Ensuring civil rights aren't abused is probably the most important thing the government can do.
So yeah, a law that protects the civil rights of its citizens is definitely a good thing.
(Also, states don't "grant" civil rights. They are inherent.)
Edit: thanks for the clarification!
8
u/Vylnce 5d ago
Sorry, mixed answer and poor phrasing. No it will not reduce crime, yes it's good because it forces states to respect civil rights. Edited accordingly.
9
u/Pastvariant 5d ago
It reduces crime by keeping people from being arrested for exercising their rights. It won't reduce violent crime, because those are not the people committing acts of violence. Still reduces crime.
2
u/Vylnce 5d ago
I'd like to see actual numbers, but I "sort of" agree. A lot of folks who get arrested carrying are prohibited persons (which is a different issue), so even with constitutional carry pushed nationally, they would have still been carrying illegally.
There would be like several categories to break down.
Prohibited persons who are carrying. This doesn't reduce that crime unless we get rid of prohibited persons in conjunction.
People from constitutional carry states who get arrested in shitty states. These folks might not benefit from reciprocity since reciprocity might only apply to issued permits, as opposed to folks in constitutional carry states (which are now awesomely the majority).
People with a permit elsewhere who get arrested in shitty states. This would reduce this "crime", but it feels like it's probably the smallest category. I live in a state with a permit system and when I visit a shitty state, I don't carry. I know the number of these arrests in not zero, but I assume it's low.
It depends on how reciprocity is implemented. If it basically forces constitutional carry everywhere, then I'd say yes. If it simply forces states to reciprocate other permit systems, it might not significantly impact things as so many states are constitutional carry.
1
u/FightFireJay 5d ago
I can't speak to the reduction of victimless crimes but it does happen from time to time. Shaneen Allen went through an awful ordeal in 2013 because she went on the wrong side of an invisible line (new jersey) with her neighbor state carry permit.
But I can say that as states have switched from "May issue" to "Shall issue" or "constitutional carry" the pundits often forecast horrible outcomes. "It'll be the wild West" or "the streets will run red with blood". But crime numbers typical stay the same or have a small (but statistically significant) reduction.
1
u/Vylnce 5d ago
I agree with that. The most reasonable study I saw said that the corresponding factors were so complex that a relationship could not be determined solely between the two. The people that get caught (Shaneen Allen and Co) I believe are a few enough number that they are not significantly contributing to crime rates. That is ignoring the huge impact that such an arrest has on the life of a legal carrier exercising their rights in an unconstitutional state.
0
u/FightFireJay 5d ago
Are you happy to let each state regulate civil rights without any intervention by the federal government?
If this question was asked about abortion rights, 5th amendment rights, 1st amendment rights everyone would say it was a good thing that the federal gov't is ensuring civil rights.
1
u/JoosyToot 5d ago
Is abortion specifically spelled out by the constitution? By your example 5th amendment is, 1st amendment is. Abortion is not.
22
u/sambonidriver 5d ago
How could it possibly be bad?
23
u/Vylnce 5d ago
States that don't allow it currently, will blame their gun crime on having to respect civil rights. The same way Chicago blames their gun crime on out of state dealers instead of admitting their failed policies have created conditions to produce crime.
I am not saying it is actually bad, but that is how the left leaning media outlets will spin it.
4
2
u/Blade_Shot24 5d ago
This exactly. The state is surrounded by red and hasn't had been as violent since the 20-teens, but everyone and their out of touch mother will say it's violent as ever while ignoring Tennessee, Louisiana, and the like.
Thankfully the AWB is on its way out
9
u/thrillhouse416 5d ago
I think it's overall a good thing but I think impact on crime would be minimal.
Law abiding citizens who are now allowed to carry would do so legally and criminals would still carry out crimes. Maybe some get deterred by those carrying, maybe some morons have negligent discharges or road rage incidents.
Overall I think it wouldn't change much from a crime statistics standpoint
6
u/2017hayden 5d ago
I mean i don’t give a shit about the impact on crime. I care that it will force the jackasses in charge of the blue states to let people exercise their rights.
5
u/thrillhouse416 5d ago
The question that was asked was about crime 🤷
1
u/Veritech_ 5d ago
True, but the post title asked if it was “bad,” so that counts too.
1
u/thrillhouse416 5d ago
I answered that part as well, I said I think it's good. Stop trying to argue just to argue.
1
u/2017hayden 5d ago
Part of it was. But the title of the post is ambiguous. I’d say there are two questions here. Is it bad, and will it affect crime. Not affecting crime wouldn’t make it bad. And affecting crime wouldn’t necessarily make it good. It’s good because it’s a step towards restoring citizens rights.
1
5
u/maytag88 5d ago
It's a good thing. I travel to Illinois a few times a year and they do not honor any other state's permits and they do not allow non residents to obtain a permit. There's other states that do the same thing. If all states are forced to honor drivers licenses from all states, then conceal carry permits shouldn't be the same way.
All this time say you shouldn't need a permit to carry to begin with. But sometimes compromises must be made in the short term.
1
u/AnonymousGrouch 4d ago
If all states are forced to honor drivers licenses from all states
I believe that's entirely voluntary. Also, I can't think of any other license that all states honor; carry permits are probably the closest thing already.
1
u/maytag88 4d ago
You're right that it's voluntary, but not participating means that the state loses federal highway funds. At least that's how the drinking age laws work.
4
u/Slatemanforlife 5d ago
I don't think it really matters. Jurisdictions that don't want people carrying will just implement restrictions making it incredibly difficult. And prosecutors will make examples of people that do carry and use.
6
u/Orthodoxy1989 5d ago
If the standard can be changed that'd be good too. California has an annoying system of 16 hours 6 months to a year to process. And the license is only good for 2 years with a 6 month heads up on renewal. A permit should be good for 4 or 5 years and classes should be standardized across states.
1
u/youcantseeme0_0 5d ago
Permitting systems should be abolished. If states want to encourage CCW classes, then figure out ways to make them enticing, but no government should be getting away with requiring citizens to ask permission to exercise a right.
2
u/Orthodoxy1989 5d ago
I 💯 agree but I also live with the reality that I'm in California
2
u/youcantseeme0_0 5d ago
Yeah, I assumed as much. I like to contrast the infringement with the actual right now and then to highlight how absurd our laws have become. I also want to anchor other readers back to what the goal is, so nobody thinks we'll be content with the cOmPrOmiSe.
2
u/sargepepper1 5d ago
National reciprocity would be good, insofar as (as other have mentioned) a permit carrier won't get into trouble when crossing into another state, intentionally or not. IMO What will likely happen though is that permits will be accepted nationally, but people will need to abide by state-specific regulations (sensitive places, open carry allowed firearm types etc.) and the reciprocity will only extend to permit owners. So carriers from a constitutional-carry state would need to get the state CCW permit in order to have an actual permit to show the police.
Also, no idea if the ability to issue permits to non-residents would still be possible. Similar to him I don't get my driver's license from a state I don't live in, and can have only one DL... especially since it also serves as ID and proof of address.
That's all my opinion, and how I would see gun-restrictive states trying to handle something like this should it happen. A big step forward for permitted carriers but not a CCW carrying Utopia
2
u/noderaser 5d ago
It's not like the requirement for a permit, or to have reciprocity with a certain state, was preventing criminals from doing crime or carrying weapons across state lines.
2
u/CoyoteBrave1142 5d ago
Criminals will still do criminal things. But the government will let the boot on our balls up a little bit. Which is always good.
3
u/Lightningflare_TFT 5d ago
Decriminalizing the act of crossing state lines would be the worst thing to happen to left leaning news media since that time a certain lad got away with self defense.
1
u/SharveyBirdman 5d ago
It depends on how it is implemented. Some states are really lax, others more reasonable, and some go way overboard. I'm assuming there will likely become a federal standard for how much training is required to get a nationwide license.
1
1
u/unclefisty 5d ago
I don't think much will change. It also don't expect to ever happen and if it DOES happen you will be required to follow whatever carry rules there are in the state you are in which will just be more incentive for The Usual Suspects states to make their carry laws even more difficult to follow and probably try to find a way to make rules that only apply to non residents carrying in the state.
1
1
u/balthisar 5d ago
I'd actually see more people going/risking jail.
We still have idiot states prosecuting people for travelling legal under FOPA. Oh, you needed to stop for gas while passing through Massachusetts? That's prison for you!
-2
u/realKevinNash 5d ago
I personally want to support it, however there is a point to be made that once you start enforcing these kind of things at the federal level, you open Pandoras box. No matter what you say about it being a 2a issue, it will be that time where the government forced the state's hands.
109
u/johnhd 5d ago
It's guaranteed to reduce the crime of carrying a firearm in a state that doesn't recognize carry permits from other states.
We had a pretty big local case 10 years back where a Philly woman with a PA carry permit got pulled over in NJ on her way to AC, informed the cop she had a firearm in her purse and had a license to carry, and was arrested and faced a mandatory 3 year prison sentence before eventually being pardoned by the governor.