There have been numerous attempts at national reciprocity, even within this current US Congressional session.
The latest attempt? S.1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010. More specifically, amendment 1618 to that bill, sponsored by Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. This amendment appears to be the same as Thune’s stand-alone S.845 bill, just in amendment form. I see Sen. John Cornyn has signed on as a co-sponsor of the amendment form but not of the stand-alone form (odd). Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, where are you on either?. Note, if my links to the bills don’t work, go to the THOMAS website, search for S.1390 by bill number, then you can see everything including the amendments. THOMAS is neat, but it’s linking system totally blows. Anyway…
I’ve been a bit torn on this topic because I don’t really want the Fed to step in. But when you consider some unexpected bedfellows in matters such as trucking interests, and then how Thune opted to word things, this is actually reasonable.
As well, while I normally am not hip to using amendments as a way to shuttle pet projects through, I think this is a reasonable place for such an amendment. If there’s one thing the Federal Government is supposed to do it is national defense. This is the defense appropriations bill, and bringing about national reciprocity falls in line there.
For those that expect this will cause doom and gloom, I suggest you do a little homework before you start with the hysterics.
If you haven’t contacted your Senator, now is the time.
Updated: Didn’t happen. This time. Still, I think it made a good showing.
Stuff From Hsoi 
I find myself torn on this issue. I consider myself a conservative, a constitutionalist, and a federalist. While national reciprocity sounds good, I still have questions. While a strict reading of the 2nd amendment seems to support this, I agree with the poster over concerns of is this the Fed pre-empting states’ rights. Interesting conundrum but probably academic. In today’s climate I see virtually no chance of this ever becoming law.
Indeed. That’s why I get torn over this myself.
However, the wording of Thune’s bill/amendment seems to do its best to preserve state’s rights.
Then you work interstate commerce into the mix (I think about those truckers), and it really becomes an interesting situation.
Will this not become law? Who knows. By itself maybe not, but it will be interesting to see how the amendment approach will work out.
This is not a 2nd amendment issue. It is a full faith and credit issue. This amendment (or bill) makes states honor other states licenses as long as they comply with laws where they are. Could you imagine a situation where your driver’s license was not honored across the country?
Oh I agree. You look at things like marriage licenses, drivers licenses… you still have to abide by the laws of the locale where you are, but those locales will honor your license. And as far as I knew, it was the state that opted to honor it, not some Federal mandate. I could be wrong there. But again, it was the state that got to choose…. or if that’s not the case, IMHO that’s one issue here: shouldn’t the states get to choose?
But then you look at things like say professional licenses, such has HVAC repair. As far as I know, those are local… get one in Texas, it doesn’t carry to Pennsylvania (tho I could be wrong here). It’s arguable it’s a different sort of license, but the point remains.
So this is really the tough issue.
Of course the ideal thing would be that the public would wake up and realize that law abiding citizens are just that: law abiding citizens. But the trend today is to suspect everyone, guilty until proven innocent. So really, this is no surprise… sad, but no surprise. *sigh*