National CCW


PDA






Gary H
December 30, 2002, 04:03 PM
Isn't it about time that Congress take up this issue and standardize legal carry for citizens? My guess is that even in a pro-gun legislature, this would be a hard sell. Reason, anti-gunners would vote no, cowardly Republicans would vote no and folks from pro-states might even vote no for fear of losing privileges under a more restrictive federal standard. Will a federal right to carry ever be passed and signed into law?

If you enjoyed reading about "National CCW" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
foghornl
December 30, 2002, 04:16 PM
Not unless the US Supreme Court knocks down most of the firearms laws now on the books...Which, as I see it ..." A H "

Ain't Happ'nin

Gary H
December 30, 2002, 04:22 PM
Not unless the US Supreme Court knocks down most of the firearms laws now on the books...Which, as I see it ..." A H "

Why must most laws be tossed out by the courts in order to establish National CCW? There is greater constitutional authority for national legislation on this score than most laws passed by congress. The constitutional justification for congressional action in many areas is rather questionable. "Interstate Commerce" and other excuses are given for the feds right to legislate. This one is straight forward. What statutes must be overturned? The law itself would supersede previous legislation.

TallPine
December 30, 2002, 05:17 PM
We already have "national CCW" - it's called the Second Amendment. It just needs to be enforced.

That's why Supreme Court needs to overturn state prohibitions on both concealed and open carry. (a "Roe vs Wade" for RKBA)

Funny how a right that is deduced (invented?) from the Constitution has more force than something that is plainly stated. :mad:

G-Raptor
December 30, 2002, 05:23 PM
No need for any new law. Simple recognition of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution will suffice.

Each state is "supposed" to accept the legal documents of all the others. A valid CCW permit is a legal document issued by the state.

labgrade
December 30, 2002, 09:42 PM
Thank you, tallpine & G-R. Saved me a lot of typing.

Hkmp5sd
December 30, 2002, 10:26 PM
I doubt we ever see a "Roe v Wade" decision on the 2nd Amendment anytime soon. The current *best* feasible scenerio is ALL states have "Shall Issue" CCWs and have a nationwide reciprocation like we do for driver's licenses.

m.i.sanders
December 30, 2002, 10:33 PM
G-Raptor has it right. I personally don't think that the FedGov should issue a National CCW. What the Fed's give, they can take away and if the wrong set of people came to power in Congress or the White House, it would dispear faster than a pastry at weight watchers class. This is something that should be controlled by the States, because if it is controlled by the States, then it would be much harder for the Anti's to restrict CCW.

Just my .02 cents.

Preacherman
December 30, 2002, 11:11 PM
Another problem. I'm willing to bet that if we tried to get this legislation through Congress, there are those, particularly Democrats and liberals, who would respond "Yes, sure, we'll support national CCW legislation - PROVIDED THAT you register ALL your guns in order to qualify for your permit!" And we all know what that would lead to in the long run... :rolleyes:

another okie
December 30, 2002, 11:13 PM
The full faith and credit clause in Constitution has been interpreted by the courts to mean court judgments, not licenses and there is a big loophole for "public policy." Public policy means we don't like it, so we don't accept it. States are probably not actually required to accept one another's drivers' licenses, they do it as matter of comity and convenience.

As nice as national CCW would be, it violates everything I believe about federalism and the role of the federal government, and I put principle before convenience.

JPM70535
December 30, 2002, 11:26 PM
I agree that the Federal government will never address the question of a national CCW. It can barely agree on what day it is. The problem with leaving CCW up to the States in the belief that they would enact Shall Issue permits with Reciprosity mationwide is that states like the PRK, the PRNY, and PRNJ and the great District of Kolumbia will never allow their citizens the freedom to carry. The liberal, passive, turn the other cheek mentality is too long ingrained to be reversed.

The only hope comes from SCOTUS, assuming they can muster the courage to affirm the BIll of Rights as written.

Matthew Courtney
December 30, 2002, 11:30 PM
Regrettably, G-r's analysis of the full faith and credit clause is not quite comprehensive.

Marriages, which involve a status change recognized by all 50 states and the federal government, fall within the purview of full faith and credit, as do divorces, birth and death certificates, etc. These all involve what without court intervention or a once in a lifetime event, is a permanent status change.

Other permits and licenses, which allow the holder to perform a regulated activity, restrict the permittee to a geographical area, a predetermined period of time, or both. i.e. Plumbers and Lawyers can pursue their trades only in the areas issuing their licenses and must renew them regularly. Heck, if you move into many areas, you even have to re-license your dog!

Driver's licenses, vehicle registrations, and other mutli-state recognized permits are so recognized by states' legislation, states' agreements, or congressional mandate. Even so, when relocating, one's prior license is valid only for a very limited time.

Imagine the confusion that would ensue if a permit to build a structure in one state was valid when the contractor decided to construct the building in another state!

That said, I believe that my carry permit was given to me by my creator, and recognized by my government in the bill of rights!

deanf
December 30, 2002, 11:39 PM
There is greater constitutional authority for national legislation on this score than most laws passed by congress.

What would that constitutional authority be?

If you say "the 2nd Amendment" I would reply that the 2nd Amendment delegates no authority for the government to do anything.

Matthew Courtney
December 30, 2002, 11:55 PM
You are right that the 2nd Amendment confers no power on the Federal Government. It alone, however, does not prohibit the states from regulating CCW.

The 14th Amendment combines with the 2nd to restrict states in this regard. It also gives Congress the power to prevent the states from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

Amendment XIV

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Reading the Constitution is great, but we cannot only remember the parts we like. While it is not "a living document" except that it can be ammended when needed, it is a lenghty and complex one. Knowing only one part of the Constitution is like having only one gun. What are you going to do the rest of the time?

Standing Wolf
December 30, 2002, 11:56 PM
I distrust the federal government even more than state governments: it's further removed from the people, larger, wealthier, and far more susceptible than most states to leftist extremist corruption and insanity.

Zander
December 31, 2002, 01:16 AM
I doubt we ever see a "Roe v Wade" decision on the 2nd Amendment anytime soon. I should hope not, as Roe v. Wade was based on complete fiction and accomplished by judicial fiat.

What we need are decisions based on the Constitution...not in contravention of it.

labgrade
December 31, 2002, 01:36 AM
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. '

That's The Big Kicker that seems so often ignored.

I've not dug into it enough to be conversant, but some @TFL seem to think that there's some precidence that precludes the above. Again, without doing my homework, I'd dispute it (that claim that there's an over-riding "we don't have to" States' argument)

Far as I'm concerned, The Second states that we the right. It's up to any guv-entity to prove that we're not up to snuff.

We've a;ready got national CCW. The rub is, they don't recognise it & we can go to jail having to prove it - as if.

Wildalaska
December 31, 2002, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by Zander
I should hope not, as Roe v. Wade was based on complete fiction and accomplished by judicial fiat.

What we need are decisions based on the Constitution...not in contravention of it.

I find your crtitism of Roe highly amusing, especially after looking at your signature... :)

Gary H
December 31, 2002, 04:23 AM
We also have freedom of speech and yet we can be arrested for yelling fire in a crowd, or making threatening statements regarding the President of the United States. So, the government seems to be able to constrain our rights. That seems to run counter to "shall not infringe." The Supremes haven't made a modern interpretation of the second, so I might insists that my carrying without a license is a protected right, but I had better be willing to go to jail, or pay the price. So, will the Supremes rule, or will congress act first? I suspect that both will do their best to dodge the issue:(

voilsb
December 31, 2002, 04:32 AM
since it's highly unlikely the gov will decide that the 2nd amendment actually applies, I'd be all for a federal law requiring every state to recognize every other state's concealed weapons permits. I'd also support a shall-issue federally issued permit.

of course, neither of those is really more likely to happen than the 2nd amendment actually being taken seriously, so I guess I'm dreaming either way.

labgrade
December 31, 2002, 08:07 PM
Couple things.

Yelling fire is a good thing to do IF there's a fire. There is no prior restraint against the act though. You'll just suffer the consequences of poor judgement if there's not.

Big difference regards a firearm since it's mere possession, not use, mind you, IS prior restraint.

In my twisted mind anyway.

I don't want the feds in anything else. Period & they should just bail out of the stuff that they've restricted to end already. Think they've already proven their compitency - or lack thereof.

No thanks.

Zander
December 31, 2002, 08:43 PM
I find your crtitism of Roe highly amusing, especially after looking at your signature... Ditto!

Happy New Year! :cool:

USGuns
December 31, 2002, 09:07 PM
Maybe once the terrorists :evil: start striking more frequently (a matter of when, not if) here in the US then there might be a legislative movement towards a National CCW to allow Americans to defend themselves ... oh wait, the left :evil: doesn't WANT us to defend ourselves... :cuss:

What do y'all think? Maybe after a few suicide bombers have struck then Congress might come around? :banghead:

Kevinch
January 1, 2003, 12:24 PM
Maybe after a few suicide bombers have struck then Congress might come around?

You & a sidearm won't be much protection against a "suicide bomber". And I doubt you'll find much LE support for citizen dispatchiing of "suspected terrorists" in the streets. In fact, feared vigilante action would probably do more to harm concealed carry legislation.

Look at Israel. The military personnel take their weapons home with them. I couldn't get used to the sight - infantry going home on leave, in full camo with their weapons slung over their shoulders. But it has hardly stopped terrorism, & I think it would be an ineffective argument here.

USGuns
January 1, 2003, 02:56 PM
I thought I saw a report on Fox News that Concealed Carry was on the rise in Israel? Can anyone confirm?

I agree, it probably wouldn't do any good unless you are able to identify them before they do the murderous deed and take them out. Very unlikely. I know the Isreali military has done that a few times but haven't heard of any civilians able to do so.

tyme
January 1, 2003, 09:39 PM
Look at Israel. The military personnel take their weapons home with them. I couldn't get used to the sight - infantry going home on leave, in full camo with their weapons slung over their shoulders. But it has hardly stopped terrorism, & I think it would be an ineffective argument here.It has saved some people's lives, though. Would you like to disband the CDC because there's no way to end all disease with current technology?

TallPine
January 1, 2003, 11:37 PM
Just to set the record straight: I in no way meant that "Roe vs Wade" was a good decision IMO. In fact, it was a farfetched finding of a right that is not specifically stated in the Constitution.

But what RvsW did do was effectively ban states from prohibiting abortion on the grounds that it was a "constitutional right"

Ok, we have a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" specifically stated in the Constitution, so in a world that made any sense (I would like to visit there sometime) we should have a parallel decision that banned the states (and feds, of course) from infringing upon the right to carry arms either open or concealed (as it was effectively for the first 100+ years of our nation's history).

If you enjoyed reading about "National CCW" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!