Question About State vs Fed CCW Ban.


PDA






Mot45acp
January 15, 2009, 10:31 PM
Disclaimer: This is not to discuss any political agenda of any party. Please do not get my thread shut down. That can be done by clicking the top right link of your page.

I am trying to figure out the plausibility of the enforcement.


This whole CCW ban talk got me thinking. Should one come to pass how would/could it be enforced?

In states where CCW is allowed, would state or local LEO enforce a federal regulation? I could see some jurisdictions doing so, provided they got to keep the moneys from fines. I dont see local LE agencies gaining much from this.

Would you only have to worry if you were pulled over/had interaction by a fed?

I'm thinking along the lines of the legalization of pot in California. Legal by the state but, still illegal by federal law.

Any ideas? Anything I am missing?



p.s. mods if this is to close to political, shut er down.

If you enjoyed reading about "Question About State vs Fed CCW Ban." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
crebralfix
January 15, 2009, 10:56 PM
The 2nd Amendment was ruled to not limit state action and only applies to Federal action (Barron v. Baltimore, 1833).

In Presser v. Illinois (1886), the court confirmed that Congress shall not infringe the 2nd Amendment. The decision states that "...leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes to...the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police'..." The court ruling clearly places the legislative power at the state level.

There's more, but I think this is a good start in defining the limits of Federal power. DC v. Heller should have some more clarification on this topic.

I wouldn't put it past congress to claim CCW in other states is somehow "commerce".

Read Gun Control & Gun Rights by McClurg, Kopel, and Denning (2002).

GRIZ22
January 15, 2009, 11:35 PM
The feds have no authority to pass a ban on CCW. That's not to say they wouldn't try. If they do it will be like the 55 mph speed limit, 21 yr old drinking, and .08 DWI. These were a condition the feds linked to getting highway money. They could try and link a CCW ban to a condition of getting some type of federal money that a state can't do without.

Jeff White
January 16, 2009, 12:59 AM
There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to overturn state laws. They couldn't order a 55 mph speed limit they had to blackmail the states into adopting it. I kind of doubt there would be the votes in congress for a bill that denied homeland security money or some other federal money to states that permitted CCW. It couldn't be done by executive order. Congress would have to pass legislation just like they did for the speed limit and seat belt laws.

Cyborg
January 16, 2009, 02:39 AM
"Authority? We don't NEED no steenking authority!"

The feds have no authority to pass a ban on CCW.
As far as I can tell the Feds don't have the authority to do 99% of what they do. :mad: Hasn't stopped them yet. They have done things by virtue of the commerce clause that would absolutely astound the Founding Fathers. The so called "civil war" (more correctly the "war between the states" or the "war of northern agression" since a civil war requires two or more groups fighting for control of the country. The CSA had absolutely no desire to run things in the north) was technically illegal. Lincoln did it anyhow. :cuss:

Besides, if so much as one conservative Associate Justice of SCOTUS has to be replaced they will have all the authority they will need since SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what IS and IS NOT constitutional and thus legal. The only thing that will stop them - or any government/group/cabal/etc. - is the lack of determination to do it. If they have the will to do it they will frakking well FIND a way! :eek: Our only hope - I say again our ONLY HOPE - is that they do not decide to do it.

But I am an optimist. :evil:

Cyborg
The mere fact that one is paranoid has no bearing what so ever upon whether or not someone seeks to do them harm.

divemedic
January 16, 2009, 07:39 AM
The very existence of West Virginia proves that the government doesn't care about what it can and cannot do.

Art IV Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

DeepintheHeart
January 16, 2009, 09:23 AM
One cannot overlook a technique of regulation that has proven quite popular, taxation. If you tax something enough, you drive it out of existence, or nearly so. If owning a handgun or assault rifle came with a really big price tag, and I mean really big and ongoing through purchase of ammunition or reloading supplies, gun ownership would certainly be affected. I don't expect to see a shift in policy toward an outright ban, but I do think taxation and restrictions on some types of guns, especially assault rifles, is possible or even likely. And I'm not alone in that suspicion, judging from the prices being paid for ARs at gun shows.

ilbob
January 18, 2009, 01:33 AM
The very existence of West Virginia proves that the government doesn't care about what it can and cannot do.

Art IV Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
I think one might make a pretty good argument that VA having seceeded was no longer a state of the USA so this particular prohibition no longer applied.

divemedic
January 18, 2009, 11:26 AM
But it was the North's claim that states could not secede from the Union that was the basis for the Civil War.

gc70
January 18, 2009, 12:30 PM
I think one might make a pretty good argument that VA having seceeded was no longer a state of the USA so this particular prohibition no longer applied.

It might be a good argument, but it was not the argument made by the United States government. The government consistently held that the Southern states had not seceeded from the Union, but were in rebellion.

Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html)

It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Duke of Doubt
January 18, 2009, 01:01 PM
To me, the very existence of West Virginia demonstrates quite a number of things.

As to CCW, the federal government might try to ban it (I doubt this), but some states would then, I suspect, decriminalize the carrying of a concealed firearm for everyone (like Vermont and Alaska), except in those certain locations identical to those locations now prohibited for concealed carry.

Flyboy
January 18, 2009, 01:46 PM
There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to overturn state laws. They couldn't order a 55 mph speed limit they had to blackmail the states into adopting it. I kind of doubt there would be the votes in congress for a bill that denied homeland security money or some other federal money to states that permitted CCW. It couldn't be done by executive order. Congress would have to pass legislation just like they did for the speed limit and seat belt laws.
Jeff, while I agree with you, I think you overestimate the respect Congress has for the limits on its authority. Consider the gun-free school zone law that was thrown out in Lopez for having no nexus with interstate commerce; the Congress simply re-passed the law to say that no gun "which has moved in interstate commerce" shall be brought into a school zone. With the expansive view of interstate commerce cemented by Raich, it is entirely plausible to think the Congress will attempt something along the lines of "no gun which has moved in interstate commerce shall be carried in public."

I'm not saying the law would be upheld, but I wouldn't put it past Congress to try it, and it would be a long and expensive fight.

If you enjoyed reading about "Question About State vs Fed CCW Ban." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!