National concealed carry pending bills?


PDA






JJY
October 2, 2006, 12:38 PM
With respect to the pending house and senate bills that would require states to recognize the concealed carry permits/licenses issued by other states

Does anyone think they will ever be voted on?
Does anyone think they will pass?
Does anyone care?

Just wondering

If you enjoyed reading about "National concealed carry pending bills?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LAR-15
October 2, 2006, 12:41 PM
There is a Senate version and a House version.

The House version would pass IF the Republicans stay in control of the House.

It's the Senate that is the problem.

Recently the US House allowed Federal judges to carry concealed handguns on the job.

Certain Senators apparently balked at that and it is in limbo.

tellner
October 2, 2006, 12:55 PM
Strange that with control of both houses and the presidency for over five years this never got anywhere until just before some difficult mid-term elections. You'd almost think that the GOP doesn't really care much about gun owners and just wants to string them along for votes :rolleyes:

obiwan1
October 2, 2006, 01:08 PM
They string voters along because it works! The Dems have been using this theory on black voters for GENERATIONS and it continues to be effective. We must be more demanding than they are.

hugh damright
October 2, 2006, 02:03 PM
I don't want the federal government to have anything to do with concealed carry. I don't like the concealed carry laws in some States, but I respect their right to pass them ... just as I might not like what someone says but I still respect their right to say it.

kludge
October 2, 2006, 02:07 PM
The right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed.

The national carry law already exists. No need for a new one.

SolaScriptura139
October 2, 2006, 02:07 PM
but I respect their right to pass them ...

But do they really have the right to make laws on ccw? I thought the US constitution could not be outweighed by state law?

DRMMR02
October 2, 2006, 02:15 PM
It does. But in this day and age, that doesn't seem to matter much The idea of needing a license to bear a weapon is outrageous. And in most places you don't need one to carry openly. If anything, the opposite should be true. What I choose to carry on my own person out of public sight is no one's buisness but my own.

Manedwolf
October 2, 2006, 02:17 PM
There is a Senate version and a House version.

The House version would pass IF the Republicans stay in control of the House.

So why haven't they done anything with it in the past five years they have HAD control of the house?

You'd think they're promising it now so they could get votes, stay in...and promptly not do anything for another few years, then again, and again...

4t5
October 2, 2006, 02:41 PM
If a national CHL became law, all the feds have to do is push one button and anyone who has one suddenly doesn't. Centralization of power is never a good idea, even with a subject close to all of our hearts, such as this.

Smurfslayer
October 2, 2006, 02:53 PM
For the love of God, Allah, trees and any other diety or potential supreme being I may have inadvertently left out...

NEITHER BILL is national CCW!

Both are reciprocity standard bills. Congres HAS the authority to regulate in the field of interstate commerce and since guns are made up of parts which HAVE TRAVELLED in interstate commerce, there is a nexus and thus, authority for congress to legislate. The courts have upheld this repeatedly and as recent as Raich which was cited to decide Stewart after remand.

Should Congress be less involved in all aspects of our lives? Sure. Will they do that voluntarily? No. So, let's at least move the ball forward wile we have the chance. The antis won't hesitate to use congress against us...

Malum Prohibitum
October 2, 2006, 03:05 PM
NEITHER BILL is national CCW!

Thank goodness somebody recognizes this.

romma
October 2, 2006, 03:13 PM
The Government can use the commerce clause against us gun owners, why can't it be used in our favor. I am in Connecticut, and I darn for sure am not traveling to New York or Rhode Island to purchase diddly... If the .Gov would at least force our permits to be recognized, then I view that as a good thing... I cannot afford to go out and get an out of state permit in all 50. ido have my Ct and Fl permits.

JJY
October 2, 2006, 04:15 PM
Not to mention that it would allow carry in places like DC.

JJY
October 2, 2006, 04:43 PM
Smurfslayer, of course they are bills to require states to recognize the licenses/permits of other states, but that did not fit in the subject line as nicely as “national carry”. Besides, if passed, it would be the functional equivalent of national carry.

I agree with those who point out that you should not need a permit or license to exercise a right. I have a permit in VA but if I cross the border into DC I could be arrested and convicted of a crime. I doubt there are many people willing to do that to prove a point. Passage of the bills would be a good step, as well as a “federal law” recognition of the right, albeit in a back handed “interstate commerce” manner.

I guess I am a bit hypocritical here because I disagree with much of the expansion of the fed government that has occurred and justified based on the commerce clause and also disagree with many Supreme Court decisions that uphold federal laws on weak commerce clause grounds. In my view, the commerce clause has been stretched much further than ever intended.

I say hypocritical because while I like the idea of all states honoring the permits / licenses of other states, I don’t like federal regulation with a tenuous commerce clause basis.

Stickjockey
October 2, 2006, 04:45 PM
The right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed.

The national carry law already exists. No need for a new one.

Theoretically, yes. However, practically, there are many states that need the legislative kick in the booty to recognize that.

jnojr
October 2, 2006, 04:46 PM
The right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed.

The national carry law already exists. No need for a new one.

So, you carry under that authority, right? In every state? You haven't sold out and paid the state's bribe for an illegal, unConstitutional CCW, have you? And you CCW your Glock 18, right?

beerslurpy
October 2, 2006, 05:13 PM
Attention Retards and Illiterates!

None of these bills centralize CCW.
None of these bills make the federal government a license issuing authority. If you have a State CCW, you will still have it after such a bill.

All the bills do is make it so that your state CCW counts everywhere in the united states. They enforce reciprocity, they dont regulate issuance.

The biggest nitpick is that some of these bills have not recognized Vermont/Alaska carry nationwide, though some have provisions for it.

The 2nd amendment is NOT a national concealed carry statute. You will get arrested if you try to exercise an unincorporated constitutional right in a place that outlaws it. It is no different than trying to have gay sex in Texas or Georgia before Lawrence v Texas. You do it at your own risk, fully prepared to spend thousands in legal costs. And the supreme court is currently a lot friendlier to sodomy than RKBA.

Malum Prohibitum
October 2, 2006, 05:28 PM
I say hypocritical because while I like the idea of all states honoring the permits / licenses of other states, I don’t like federal regulation with a tenuous commerce clause basis.

Would you feel better if they changed the basis from Commerce Clause to 14th Amendment?

Malum Prohibitum
October 2, 2006, 05:29 PM
What I mean is: States disarming black citizens was an expressed purpose of the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, I cannot accept the "not allocated to the federal government" line of reasoning when it comes to legislation aimed at preventing states from interfering with rights.

THIS is what the 14th Amendment is about, not sodomy and abortion (neither of which would have been recognized by the drafters and ratifiers of the amendment).

Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not citizens and had no rights that a white man was bound to respect. To buttress the point, the Supreme Court clearly stated that blacks could not carry guns. Citizenship, it was concluded, would bring about all sorts of perceived "evils."

"It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased. . . .and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Most of you would recognize this as the infamous Dred Scott decision.

Following the Civil War, Congress adopted three Amendments to the Constitution directly bearing on the rights of citizens, including newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment, in particular, was aimed at stopping the states from interfering with the rights of citizens by granting the power to Congress to prevent state action that interfered with rights of citizenship.

"Black codes" disarmed blacks throughout the south (among many other evils). Much of the disarming was direct, but some of the disarming was accomplished through indirect means. A permitting system was one of the indirect means utilized.

The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted during debates in which Congress frequently referred to the Second Amendment as one of the rights which it intended to guarantee against state action.

From Stephen Halbrook, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers' Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence, 5 J. on Firearms & Pub. Pol'y 7-28 (1993):

Senator Jacob M. Howard in introducing the amendment to the Senate in 1866: "The personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as ... the right to keep and bear arms .... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

. . .

The same two-thirds of Congress which proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also passed an enactment declaring that the fundamental rights of "personal liberty" and "personal (p.17)security" include "the constitutional right to bear arms." Freedmen's Bureau Act, §14, 14 Stat. 176 (July 16, 1866). This Act, and the companion Civil Rights Act of 1866, sought to guarantee the same rights that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to protect.

No court has ever considered Congress' declaration, contemporaneously with its adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the rights to personal security and personal liberty include the "constitutional right"--i.e., the right based on the Second Amendment--"to bear arms." Until now, this declaration in the Freedmen's Bureau Act has been completely unknown both to scholars and the courts

. . .
Senator Henry Wilson introduced a bill to disband the Southern state militias because they abused freedmen and "were engaged in disarming the negroes." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 914 (Feb. 19, 1866). Because of such complaints, Congress disbanded the Southern state militias. 15 Stat. 487 (Mar. 2, 1867).

. . .

A lengthy analysis of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, in Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665 (1978) relies on a speech by Representative John Bingham as follows: "Representative Bingham, for example, in discussing § 1 of the bill, explained that he had drafted § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment with the case of Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833), especially in mind." 436 U.S. at 686-87. On the same page of the speech where he mentioned Barron, Bingham characterized "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as one of the "limitations upon the power of the States ... made so by the Fourteenth Amendment." Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, Appendix 84 (Mar. 31, 1871). As the Court pointed out, "Representative Bingham, the author of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ... declared the bill's purpose to be 'the enforcement ... of the Constitution on behalf of every individual citizen of the Republic ... to the extent of the rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution." 436 U.S. at 685 n. 45.

Another authority cited in Monell (id.) was Representative Henry L. Dawes, who stated on the pages referenced by the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment "has secured to [the citizen] the right to keep and bear arms in his defense." Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 475-76 (Apr. 5, 1871).

End of quotes. Should you wish to read the whole thing (which I suggest), it is here: http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_saf-hal.html#fnb20

There is more, and much linking "privileges or immunities" to rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but the post is getting long . . .




Subsequent Supreme Court rulings, however, limited the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment in this regard more severely than its drafters could have contemplated.

Given the original thrust of the Amendment, as it was intended by its drafters and not as it has been twisted by the Supreme Court, I humbly submit that Congress has the power to prevent state action to violate the Second Amendment.

kludge
October 2, 2006, 05:31 PM
The right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed.

The national carry law already exists. No need for a new one.

So, you carry under that authority, right? In every state? You haven't sold out and paid the state's bribe for an illegal, unConstitutional CCW, have you? And you CCW your Glock 18, right?

Just my way of saying that the federal gov't. ought to stay out of CCW. My state has a law, your state has a law, if our state agree on reciprocity, so be it. The federal gov't has a law too -- it is not allowed to infringe.

kludge
October 2, 2006, 05:40 PM
Malum,

this is intriguing to me, got any more links so I can read more about it?

Manedwolf
October 2, 2006, 05:48 PM
As some here keep saying...enforcement of Full Faith and Credit Clause has nothing to do with National CCW.

It just means that if you have a license for your state, other states would HAVE to recognize it. How is that bad?

kludge
October 2, 2006, 06:13 PM
How is that bad?

It's not 'bad' , but if they 'have power' to make a law to force it, then they also 'have power' to make a law to preclude it - or at least try.

Malum Prohibitum
October 2, 2006, 06:23 PM
Malum,

this is intriguing to me, got any more links so I can read more about it?

Not really. :) It took a long, long time just to find that one! http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_...hal.html#fnb20

There is not a lot of writing in this area. This link is semi-related. http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1069

JJY
October 2, 2006, 06:30 PM
Malum,

I would like to see a federal law and/or US Supreme Court Decision stating there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, that such right is supported by, but not granted by, the Second Amendment, and that the Fourteenth Amendment makes that right enforceable against all state and local governments. Then you would have national open and concealed carry in every state.

There are a lot of other things on this list as well, but this is all that pertains to this topic.

Malum Prohibitum
October 2, 2006, 06:39 PM
Wouldn't we all? :D

The Parker case is our best bet on getting that ball rolling. Keep your eyes open, as oral arguments in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals are in November.

Malum Prohibitum
October 2, 2006, 06:41 PM
Link: http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=344

Malum Prohibitum
October 2, 2006, 06:46 PM
More to the topic, though, to answer the questions from the original post - NO, I do not think they will make it to the floor or get voted on. Most people have had a hard time getting their Representatives and Senators to even respond to them about it. Have yours?

This sort of bill ought to be a slam dunk with Republican control of Congress and the White House. Did they not sell us the LEO carry bill (HR 218) on the basis that this would be a stepping stone to doing the same for firearms carry licenses?

The Republicans act like they are in the minority . . .

Three pages of commentary here, with the last page including links to the text of the bills, current status, and lists of the sponsors. They have so many sponsors it almost looks like they should have gotten it done!

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=383

beerslurpy
October 2, 2006, 07:45 PM
In the senate, they might as well be a minority.

JJY
October 2, 2006, 07:48 PM
I live in Va so Senator Allen is the one who introduced it to the Senate. Our other Senator has not taken a position on it as far as I know. I called Senator Allen’s office a while back and got a non-answer answer …. “the senator is committed to supporting rights ….” and so on.


I have not seen the phrase Malum Prohibitum since I was in law school.

Panthera Tigris
October 2, 2006, 07:52 PM
If it ever does pass, everyone is just going to start putting up metal detectors to their places and putting up their own rules about not allowing guns in their establishments. I'd still like to see it passed. I can't see cities like Chicago or Boston allowing anyone to carry however, whether there is a national reciprocity law or not. They'll come up with some loophole to still squelch the right to carry.

johnsonrlp
October 2, 2006, 08:02 PM
I think I would rather them make a declaration that not honoring out of state permits (or better yet requiring permits at all) is in violation of the 14th Amendment. If that doesn't work then make them accept reciprocity.

DirtyBrad
October 3, 2006, 09:30 AM
I'm not clear on what these bills would mean to those of us living in hell like MD, CA, etc.

It sounds like all of you who can carry could come into MD and have your home state permits honored and carry all over the place, while those of us that actually live here would still not be able to. Is that correct?

Manedwolf
October 3, 2006, 09:55 AM
If it ever does pass, everyone is just going to start putting up metal detectors to their places and putting up their own rules about not allowing guns in their establishments.

Not a problem to me. It's a free market. Gun owners won't shop there, they'll lose business, and they'll be targets for crime.

It sounds like all of you who can carry could come into MD and have your home state permits honored and carry all over the place, while those of us that actually live here would still not be able to. Is that correct?

Yup. You have to fight that battle locally, but it's not fair to punish people who had already in their own states, when they want to travel around a country under the Constitution. Sucks for the people who live in an anti state, but safer for travellers whose home state is a more free one.

Stickjockey
October 3, 2006, 09:58 AM
There's always out-of-state permits.:evil:

DirtyBrad
October 3, 2006, 10:00 AM
Are you serious? Jesus, I don't know if laughing at the idiocy of that is from actual humor or just the prelude to losing my mind.

As if it's not enough that I have to read all of the "post pictures of your carry rig" threads on here, now I'll have people actually carrying all around me.

Would this just cover travel? If I live in VA and work in MD, would I be legal in carrying every day when I crossed the bridge?

CAPTAIN MIKE
October 3, 2006, 10:20 AM
Gents ... we can either whine about things or do something about them. Posting a thread or a reply to a thread on a website like this does not actually change anything. It just lets us vent .... or in some case, whine.

To get a law approved, the Congress will respond to overwhelmcing input from registered voters in their constituency. I for one am actively in touch with my elected representatives on a regular basis, whether I voted for them or the other guy.

My point is this. Let's stop whining and nitpicking and GET BEHIND THIS...or we will have no one to blame but ourselves if it never passes and the other side gets control of Congress after the mid-terms and then the White House in 2008. No amount of whining and nit-picking is going to achieve Victory.
Pick up the phone. Send an e-mail. Write a letter. Then do it all again to the same reps, asking why they didn't get back to you about it. Be a pain in the rear and they will respond.

Zonamo
October 3, 2006, 10:28 PM
Arizona didn't wait for the Feds. If you have a valid permit from any state, it is now valid in Arizona as of September 24, 2006.

The list at packing.org now shows reciprocity for 47 entities including New York City. The only ones missing are Illinois, Vermont, Winsconsin, and Washington DC.

Permits honored by Arizona (http://www.packing.org/state/arizona/#thisstatehonors)

Would I like to see the Feds force the other 49 states to extend to me the courtesy my state has extended to everyone else?

You betchya.

Malum Prohibitum
October 4, 2006, 10:37 AM
I have not seen the phrase Malum Prohibitum since I was in law school.

Fits, though, doesn't it? :D

There is a startling lack of telephone, email, and writing activity on behalf of these bills.

Why is that?

Do something today, or at least before the week is over.

Smurfslayer
October 4, 2006, 03:12 PM
There is a startling lack of telephone, email, and writing activity on behalf of these bills.

Why is that?

Do something today, or at least before the week is over.

Failing to do so would not only not be THR, failing to do so would be
Malum inse!

Malum Prohibitum
October 5, 2006, 01:47 PM
Malum in se! :D

Two more days before the week is out . . .

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