I know some are going to disagree with me, yet I will have to agree with James Yeager. Asshat, or not, he has put forward a proper statement. He is not against national reciprocity in as far as that deriving from the national government itself, as it should be granted such by the association of states. As in the foundling of states under the Articles of Confederation, these same states set upon agreements with each other in order of compromise and perseverence of such duties and obligations. In agreement, I also will point towards the point of national government interference in such matters has always went awry. The powers that be follow a policy of "what is given, can and shall be taken away". The national government has floundered in its primary duties and responsibilities, and can be regarded as pure power-mongering.
Ask yourself one question. How can they give permission (reciprocity enactment), when they don't have the founding authority to do such? In answer to such question, read up on the founding documents before rendering a judgement on such an issue. As I am not a scholar in such matters, I am justly putting forward my thinking upon the matter.
The same people that argue for national reciprocity are the same that argue against the AHCA (obamacare). If they overstepped the founding authority there, then how is this matter any different. The national government is not your friend, as they are as the snake in the grass. Take this for what it is, "opinion".
For those that agree let them agree, and those that not, disagree. That is the founding of OUR Grand Republic.~~"One Man's Opinion!"
I think you articulated this much more effectively than Yeager, and have given me something to think about. I like Yeager, btw. I don't always agree with him, but who agrees with anyone 100% of the time? Only political hacks and liars. (One in the same, really.)