Would you support a FEDERAL CCW system? (long)


PDA






epijunkie67
August 5, 2005, 05:56 PM
I had a “hey, I wonder…” moment a few weeks ago and have been turning it over in my head since then and thought I’d get some feedback from you guys. I currently live in a state with a CCW law and in fact have a permit and carry on a daily basis. But of course, there are numerous places I can’t carry like the post office, court house, bars, etc. And if I travel there are several states I can’t take my weapon to at all. A recent trip to MA springs to mind.

So I wondered about the feasibility of instituting a FEDERAL carry permit system for private citizens. With all the hype about terrorist attacks and homeland security it seems like an ideal time to introduce the idea. I imagine a trade off of sorts where the permit would have much more stringent requirements but give you a great deal more flexibility. Here are some of my ideas.

Longer training course than the usual couple of hour thing. Maybe a 40 or 80 hour instruction period covering legal use of firearms, situational awareness, defensive considerations, etc. An extended range qualification at different ranges and conditions and re-qualify at the range yearly. All of that is basically like many of the gun courses being offered already so the resources are out there.

I also see a much more extensive “background check”. However, one key would be that local authorities would not be able to affect the decision. It would all be done at the federal level only. That keeps gun hating officials in states like MA or NY from screwing with the process.

The trade off for all of this is a permit that is good in every state and not limited by local constraints. It is also good on federal property. So you could carry in the post office, at schools, in the court house, in a bar (as long as you don’t drink). Basically anywhere.

You could advertise it as the “nations hidden defenders”, or something like that. We could argue (correctly) that terrorists and criminals are more likely to strike where people are unarmed and unable to defend themselves. But the new permit holders mean the bad guys would never know who did or didn’t have the ability to shoot back. You might even be able to get some of the gun hating states on board since it gives the anti’s a good argument AGAINST allowing CCW laws in their home states. “If you want to carry a gun get the federal permit.” The trade off of course is that people in those states COULD get the federal permit and be allowed to carry when they might not otherwise be allowed to do so.

What are your thoughts on this? I know the states rights people would have a fit over it but that doesn’t seem to have stopped the feds before. Hell, now days you can do almost anything if it’s for “homeland security” so why not get some good out of it? Would you apply for something like this given the extra hoops? Any suggestions?

If you enjoyed reading about "Would you support a FEDERAL CCW system? (long)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Graystar
August 5, 2005, 06:01 PM
Absolutely not.

I won't ever support the licensing of a right.

Omni04
August 5, 2005, 06:06 PM
I won't ever support the licensing of a right.

+1


but your thought process is really nice. Still a nice read!

Control Group
August 5, 2005, 06:11 PM
IF there was a federal CCW permit system which states were forced to respect, THEN yes, I would apply for such a permit.

That being said, I can think of few worse blows to RKBA than federalizing permission to carry. What the government can give, it can take away with a shift in the political winds. Right now, for the antis to strip CCW, they have to fight 39 battles in 39 different states. Under a federal licensure system, they would have to fight one battle on one battlefield. Too many eggs in one basket.

And that's ignoring the obvious states' rights implications, or the fact that it would be yet another grossly unconstitutional expansion of federal power.

The only version of this idea which would be even vaguely palatable to me would be a federal system which granted permits that each state would be forced to respect, but which would not be required to CCW if your state chooses to have looser restrictions. That is, a federal CCW permit would be good in the heart of NYC, downtown DC, and the streets of LA, but you wouldn't have to have one to CCW in Vermont.

Even that would carry huge risks, however, because once you've got a federal licensing system, it's going to be very appealing for states to just recognize that as the only licensure, and you're right back in the nightmare scenario that was my first objection.

In other words, no. I'm against the idea 100%. And I'm not even one of the people who's rabidly anti-federal mandation of reciprocity for CCW permits. I'm torn on that one. This one is right out, however.

(For what it's worth, I say that as a citizen of one of the four states that has no provision for concealed carry whatsoever)

Red Dragon
August 5, 2005, 06:13 PM
Interesting idea, but it would never work

Telperion
August 5, 2005, 06:14 PM
No way, reasons exactly as Graystar said.

Furthermore, where would Congress claim Constitutional authority to create such a system? Congress is not a plenary body that make any damn fool law it wants; authority must come from article 1, section 8, or some amendment that authorizes Congress to act. And don't tell me it's interstate commerce ... last time I asked (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=90692) how carrying a gun constitutes interstate commerce (from the discussions about HR218/LEO carry), none of the law's normally talkative supporters could step up and answer.

Zundfolge
August 5, 2005, 06:17 PM
There is no "Federal Drivers' License" yet we can all drive on public roads anywhere in the country with our State drivers' licenses.

I see no reason why the same wouldn't work for CCW.

Not a Federal CCW system but a federal mandate of National Reciprocity.

epijunkie67
August 5, 2005, 06:17 PM
My idea for a federal permit system wasn't to replace the current state level CCW laws, but in addition to them. So in TN where I live you could get either the state permit or the federal one.

And as for opposing the licensing of a right, I agree. However, this is the real world. They ALREADY do this. I can't carry a concealed weapon in this state without going through the permit process. Period. Thats not likely to change any time soon. So if this country is going to limit your rights (since they already do) why not push for a system that gives you the most flexibilty possible?

Not a Federal CCW system but a federal mandate of National Reciprocity.

But even with reciprocity you can't carry in a lot of places. And a national reciprocity law is going to be pretty hard to pass given different standards for issue from state to state.

Graystar
August 5, 2005, 06:21 PM
And as for opposing the licensing of a right, I agree. However, this is the real world. They ALREADY do this.That's why we need to support HR47.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.47:

Red Dragon
August 5, 2005, 06:22 PM
The trade off for all of this is a permit that is good in every state and not limited by local constraints. It is also good on federal property. So you could carry in the post office, at schools, in the court house, in a bar (as long as you don’t drink). Basically anywhere.

The main concern would be liability issues. especially in places such as schools and bars. The one carrying may not be doing anything wrong but as long as there is a possiblity that either a child in the school or a drunk at the bar has the chance of aquiring that weapon and using it in a malicious fashion, support for the carry in said locations would be hindered. (of course there are some states which allow open carry in places that serve alcohol instead of a ban on carry, but for many, the latter is true)

Camjr
August 5, 2005, 06:28 PM
No

Those of us in gun-friendly states could lose the ability to ccw based on the whims of populaton heavy NE urban centers and the People's Republic of **********. It's easier to have citizen-driven initiatives passed on a state level (see Florida's recent success with the Castle Doctrine) than a federal level. Seems like a civil war was fought over states' rights.

For all you folks that are on this forum that live in MA, Chicago, etc., : We have plenty of room for you in Texas. Land is cheap in most of the state, gun ranges are plentiful, the women are pretty (for you girls, my wife says the cowboys are handsome) and the people are friendly. Even the Democrats in Texas are pro-gun unless they are in Austin or urban centers!

Come on down and bring more electoral votes with you!

Old Dog
August 5, 2005, 06:29 PM
No, no and no.
Why would I give up being able to carry in more than half the states (which are really the only ones I'll ever be likely to ever spend time in anyway) under my current CPLs/CHLs, for the ability to carry in a few more states I'll never go to -- and suffer MORE restrictions -- which would, undoubtedly come with a much higher price, not only in fees, but training requirements, time, paperwork and additional federal government intrusion into my life?

Camjr
August 5, 2005, 06:33 PM
Could you imagine the ammendments and riders that would be attached to a bill for this that would survive Congress?

We'd be forced to shoot "green" bullets, Mirandize the home invaders, and my gunsafe might be declared a wetland!

george_co
August 5, 2005, 07:09 PM
Just a thought - Let's say that the Federal Govt. says to the states, please call up your Militias, train them in the use of handguns, recognition of and dealing with terrorists, first aid and disaster response? Anyone passing the training will be issued a National Militia ID authorizing their carrying of a handgun and/or long gun anywhere.

I see nothing in the 2nd amendment or the milita act that prohibits the training of militia prior to deployment, even if that deployment is to live your life and carry while doing it. Similarly, I see nothing in the Milita act that says just because your of age we have to deploy you, if you are a greater danger to the other militia members and public at large please go home (we all know of individuals who fit that description).

Personally, if my state said "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of your country" I'd be out the door even though I am 52, overweight and not of militia age. In order to be effective a militia must be trained.

To me, this is the appropriate response to the diffuse threat that we now face. We cannot afford, nor do we want, enough police or military to be able to man every soft target in the country. In my own small city (15,000 pop) we have 6 elementary, two middle, and one high school. Not to mention all of the other soft targets. Even if we had credible evidence that a school in my state would be attacked tomorrow, we would not be able to defend all of the schools with our current manpower.

Hopefully, this isn't considered as being a thread Hijack or off the the thread subject.

Hawkmoon
August 5, 2005, 07:16 PM
There is no "Federal Drivers' License" yet we can all drive on public roads anywhere in the country with our State drivers' licenses.

I see no reason why the same wouldn't work for CCW.

Not a Federal CCW system but a federal mandate of National Reciprocity.
Ditto.

This should already be covered by the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution ... which is why we can drive in other states with only one drivers license.

The other problem with any national CCW system is two-fold: (1) It would expressly abrogate the 2nd Amendment, by acknoledging that what the Constitution says shall not be infringed is now okay to infringe; and (2) what the gummint gives, the gummint can take away. So they could come up with a system like this, get us all on board and agreeing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply any longer ... and then when they decide the time is ripe, they just cancel all the permits and say we have NO right to keep or bear arms.

Nice read -- bad idea.

And ... 80 hours of training before I can exercise a right guaranteed to me by the Constitution? I don't think so.

Hawkmoon
August 5, 2005, 07:25 PM
Those of us in gun-friendly states could lose the ability to ccw based on the whims of populaton heavy NE urban centers and the People's Republic of **********. It's easier to have citizen-driven initiatives passed on a state level (see Florida's recent success with the Castle Doctrine) than a federal level. Seems like a civil war was fought over states' rights.
Warning: Thread Drift

I think it is important to note that Florida did not recently do ANYTHING regarding the "Castle Doctrine."

The castle doctrine applies when you are assaulted or invaded within the confines of your own home. The law which Florida recently passed (and which, BTW, is NOT yet in effect) has exactly nothing to do with the castle doctrine. The new law simply removes from Florida statute a previous requirement that a victim had to make an attempt to retreat before being justified in the use of deadly force for self-defense. The new law removes the duty to retreat. It does not affect the castle doctrine because there was no duty to retreat when within your own home.

DeseoUnTaco
August 5, 2005, 07:33 PM
I wouldn't support this. By the end of this year there will probably be more than 40 states with shall-issue (or nearly shall-issue) permit systems. If it becomes a Federal issue, then all the progress made in those states will be replaced by a federal law. They giveth and they can also taketh away. I would rather have the states.

The only two big states remaining are New York and CA. New York isn't going to happen. CA is pretty close to becoming CCW because there's a CA resident here who is raising hell. As Jim says, CA's discretionary system is a Jim Crow law, and it will eventually be swept away like all the other Jim Crow laws.

Big Bad Wolf
August 5, 2005, 08:09 PM
Absolutely Not!! :fire:

First off to allow the Federal Government the power to decide who can carry a gun and where they can carry, complete with the power to change the rules we must follow at any time is a monumentally bad idea. Second, it is a right and not subject to Federal Government licensing. Third, everything the Federal Government touches turns to crap. See Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, The Post Office, The Education Department, and any other Government entity you can think of.

If we must deal with licenses to carry then reciprocity between the states is where it is at, not a Federally issued CCW.

Camjr
August 5, 2005, 08:22 PM
Hawk,

Thanks for clarifying. I stopped short.

Standing Wolf
August 5, 2005, 10:40 PM
Show me where it says anything about licensing in the Second Amendment.

beerslurpy
August 5, 2005, 10:46 PM
This should already be covered by the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution ... which is why we can drive in other states with only one drivers license.

Awesome hawk, that was exactly what I was going to write.

enfield
August 5, 2005, 10:49 PM
NO

The federal government received all of its powers, from us, in the Constitution. They didn't receive any power to regulate the carrying of arms.

Jim March
August 6, 2005, 12:00 AM
IF the USSC came out with strong support for the 2nd Amendment, this might be workable. As is, it's a bad idea.

The thing to remember is that even with a strongly supported 2nd Amendment decision, there is a body of case law from before the Civil War that says the 2A doesn't include CCW rights.

There is a valid argument the other way based on the 14th Amendment: according to it's original author John Bingham, the bit about "states not being able to infringe on the privileges and immunities of US citizenship" should be read to include the right to arms as part of our privileges and immunities. The stated (by Bingham) purpose was to protect the new freemen in 1868 and subsequent from the proto-KKK. Such a purpose would have been practically impossible without CCW as any black packing openly would have been gunned down with a sniper rifle.

Problem: the P&I clause in the 14th was destroyed for all intents and purposes by the USSC between 1872 and 1900. We've NEVER gotten it back despite credible historical evidence as to what it was about.

Without it, we revert to the pre-civil-war cases and we're at "open carry definately legal".

Well from there, we just do like Ohio, do open-carry marches until the sheeple legislators create at least halfway reasonable CCW so they won't have to see so many "icky guns" :rolleyes:

epijunkie67
August 6, 2005, 12:14 AM
Some good points being made. I can see several of the problems with the system as defined by several others. The only thing I can take issue with is all the people who keep saying "You can't license my right to keep and bear!"

Um, newsflash. They already do. Don't believe me? Try getting caught with a concealed weapon on you in ANY state in the country without a permit of some kind. Even in gun friendly states like TX or TN you can't carry a conceled weapon without a permit. So it isn't a question of "I shouldn't have to get permission from the gubbmint to carry a gun!" It's a question of who's issuing the license.

That right has already been pretty effectively infringed. I don't like it, you don't like it. I'd like to change it. But until that happens I have to work within the system as it exists.

Graystar
August 6, 2005, 12:47 AM
Try getting caught with a concealed weapon on you in ANY state in the country without a permit of some kind.Vermont and Alaska don't mind at all.

epijunkie67
August 6, 2005, 12:50 AM
Vermont and Alaska don't mind at all.

True. I stand corrected. Now if only we could get the rest of the country to think this way. Unfortunately, my point is correct for the other 48 states.

Graystar
August 6, 2005, 02:31 AM
This should already be covered by the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution ... which is why we can drive in other states with only one drivers license. This is a common misconception. The “full faith and credit” clause does not mean that one state must enforce the laws of another state. It only means that a state must accept documents and rulings as being valid. That is to say, if a driver’s license from one state says the driver is 30 years old, then another state should faithfully accept that the driver is 30 years old. Actual enforcement of such documents or rulings has always been limited to matters of right, because every state is bound to protect our rights.

You can drive across the country with a driver’s license from your home state because every state that you drive through has passed legislation allowing non-residents to drive within the state as long as they have a valid license from their state of residence. However, this legislation does not purport to treat a person as if he is driving in his own state. It only means that a licensed driver from one state will be treated as a driver licensed under the laws of the current state he’s driving in.

For example, a 15 yr old with a valid Montana driver’s license cannot drive in New Jersey for another three years. That is because you must be 18 years old to drive in New Jersey. New Jersey recognizes the license as valid, but will only enforce it under its laws, not Montana’s.

From New York State law:
2. A person of the age of sixteen years and upwards who shall be a nonresident of this state, and a resident of a state, territory, federal district or foreign country having laws, with which such person has complied, which require such person, in order to operate a motor vehicle or motorcycle therein, to be licensed, may operate or drive a motor vehicle or motorcycle on the public highways of this state without being so licensed under this chapter, provided, however, that the recognition granted under this subdivision shall, with respect to a person under the age of eighteen years, only permit the operation of a motor vehicle or motorcycle in this state in accordance with the same restrictions imposed upon New York residents operating or driving motor vehicles or motorcycles with class DJ or MJ licenses under subdivision three of section five hundred one of this chapter.

New York State Vehicle & Traffic law
Article 3, Section 250

dpesec
August 6, 2005, 02:52 AM
The reason I understand it that Drivers liscencs are allowed is the "full faith and credit clause" without that things would be different. The interesting question is why doesn't that apply to CCW?

Sam
August 6, 2005, 03:55 AM
No.

The Fed Govts only business is running a military, keeping the roads open and getting the mail delivered. They are already in serious violation of the Constutution. Authorize them to license another violation?

NO

Sam

Graystar
August 6, 2005, 04:11 AM
The interesting question is why doesn't that apply to CCW? The answer is in the post right above yours.

artherd
August 6, 2005, 04:42 AM
Absolutely NOT.

The state bans (oooooh, sorry, 'permits') are already illegal.

Since I will not sanction criminal activity, I can't abide by a federal system!



Sounds real good, dosen't it? In reality, if it were shal-issue, I'd likely be all over that.

RealGun
August 6, 2005, 09:22 AM
A federal law would be a direct confrontation with "shall not be infringed". States can get away with making the bearing of arms a privilege, at least they have so far, but the feds cannot. Rather than support such a concept as national licensing, in my opinion a gun rights supporter should hold out for insisting that the 2nd Amendment applies to States and that, being contrary to the 14th Amendment, all licensing laws are fundamentally unconstitutional (in spite of NRA having recommended licensing 75 years ago).

Working within the current status quo, it is better to be patient and allow States to be more cooperative in recognizing licenses from other States. National licensing is a poor strategy to bring licensing to States unfriendly to guns and where licensing is currently non-existent or virtually so.

There is no way to force States to cooperate with licensing, because it would bring a confrontation with the constitutional basis for what they are doing.

Passing a national licensing law would give the feds power they don't currently have and would totally ignore the 2nd Amendment once again. In my estimation, those who would support such a law believe or have accepted that bearing arms is a privilege, not a right.

The only way I can see for national licensing to fly is to revise the 2nd Amendment. That is exactly how the interim constitution for Iraq reads. Possession of firearms requires a national license. Good luck on getting a license. Obviously that would be a giant step backward.

GT
August 6, 2005, 12:34 PM
so.. let me get this straight... create yet another unConstitutional bureaucracy that has control over Concealed Carry so that one unelected official can change the rules and parameters at will (cf. EPA).

This is (supposed to be) a Republic made up from semi-autonomous states, not a central government Democracy. By even thinking "Federal" you have already bought into the Klintonian plan of creating a Socialist Workers' Paradise Police State (like England).

I feel it is misleading to argue on the Federal level. The DC "government" is only supposed to protect the citizens, deal with "furriners" and smooth interstate commerce (real interstate commerce).
If you are talking about War, Homeland Security, I-95 or CAFTA then great, Federal it is.
All the Feds should be doing about guns is not infringing upon our rights to keep and bear.

It's called "begging the question"; where you create a false premise and then argue logically based on that false premise.
Before you create a brilliant logical argument you should first consider whether the premise itself bears scrutiny.

G

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 01:05 PM
I would support a SCOTUS ruling that the Second Amendment, via the Fourteenth Amendment, prevents government at any level from regulating the ownership and carry of any weapon, but I would not favor Federal legislation establishing a regulatory scheme for national concealed carry. That would be unconstitutional, as the Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to regulate any aspect of weapons ownership or carry. In fact, it specifically forbids it via the Second Amendment.

DelayedReaction
August 6, 2005, 01:12 PM
Absolutely not. Although the idea of nationwide reciprocity is wonderful, it's constrained by the fact that the government agency in charge of controlling it would be the BATF.

Which I'm sure we all love.

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 01:20 PM
Absolutely not. Although the idea of nationwide reciprocity is wonderful, it's constrained by the fact that the government agency in charge of controlling it would be the BATF.

Which I'm sure we all love.Not only do we not love it, it is an unconstitutional agency of the Federal Government, and needs to be shut down pronto. If I am wrong, show me where the Constitution authorizes the regulation of alcohol, tobacco and/or firearms. The Federal Government has only those powers granted, all others belonging to the States or the people, respectively. Anyone in DC ever heard of a little thing called the Tenth Amendment?

Gray Peterson
August 6, 2005, 05:20 PM
HR1243 is what I support that would in fact give us national CCW, that is CCW reciprocity. Keeps fedgov involvement to a MINIMUM.

If you enjoyed reading about "Would you support a FEDERAL CCW system? (long)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!