The “Reciprocal Conceal Carry” Act. S. 845


PDA






wyofool
June 11, 2009, 11:51 AM
A bill in the Senate, S. 845, co-sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA), allows for reciprocity among all the states that currently allow citizens to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

If you enjoyed reading about "The “Reciprocal Conceal Carry” Act. S. 845" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Oyeboten
June 11, 2009, 03:36 PM
Sounds good...


I believe in State's Rights, definitely.

But given that Federal interest in firearms Constitutionally supercedes or co-exists anyway, I see no harm in the States being enouraged to recognise one-another in reasonable reciprocal courtesys which directly and positively effect their Citizens.


If States recognise one-another's issuance of Driver's Licenses, then it stands to reason, they ought to recognise one-anothers in-effect, CCW Licenses also.

oron
June 12, 2009, 04:01 PM
the look of a few Dem's faces,
ca. nyc. mass.
If it passed.
would be pricless.

RoostRider
June 12, 2009, 04:53 PM
How would that change anything? The states are already "allowed" to have reciprocity.

Would this fall in as an interstate commerce issue thereby making Federal Jurisdiction constitutional and thus forcing states to have reciprocity? In which case, why would it stop at only the states that currently allow CCW permits?... which they all do in one way or another don't they?

Kind of like a DL, which has to be honored in all states....

metallic
June 12, 2009, 04:59 PM
the look of a few Dem's faces,
ca. nyc. mass.
If it passed.
would be pricless.

That's reason enough for me to hope it passes. Wouldn't hold my breath though.

Cougfan2
June 12, 2009, 05:38 PM
I'm prepared to get Flamed here, but I don't like the idea of the Feds having anything to do with state CCW laws. If the Fed controls the law, they can also pass amendments to weaken it or otherwise encumber concealed carry. Although still difficult, it's much easier to fight these battles at the state level than at the federal level.

Call me paranoid, but the Fed has too much power over my individual liberty now. I don't relish the idea of giving them any more.

Donning Flame Retardant Suit!!!

AirForceShooter
June 12, 2009, 05:41 PM
+1 for Cougfan

See? No flames

AFS

Hungry Seagull
June 12, 2009, 06:11 PM
Supermajority of states, I think 36 states can bypass and limit federal power and force all states to honor each others CCW licenses nationwide.

I say EXCELLENT! They do it already with CDL's, Pilot licenses and drivers licenses and some other trades, why not CCW's too.

I too would like to watch what happens to NY, Cali and Illinios if something like this becomes law nationwide.

Smithiac
June 12, 2009, 06:21 PM
, why would it stop at only the states that currently allow CCW permits?... which they all do in one way or another don't they?
NO!!! Illinois does not allow Concealed Carry in anyway shape or form. And to my knowledge Wisconsin is th only other state where concealed carry is illegal.

RoostRider
June 12, 2009, 06:38 PM
<EDIT- to add relevance>
I'm not for or against the Feds taking control of things I have no idea about, such as this. The Feds clearly have a place in at very least some interstate issues, according to SCOTUS and most common beliefs.... and as I believe the founding fathers intended.

Can someone answer my first question- How would that change anything? The states are already "allowed" to have reciprocity.
<END EDIT>

Less relevant-

You can't get a concealed carry license under any circumstances in WI or IL?

That just seems irresponsible.... what about people with areal demonstrative reasons for needing a firearm.... do they allow open carry permits? (clearly for armed guards I would assume, but I mean for Joe Citizen)

verdun59
June 12, 2009, 06:40 PM
I'm with Cougfan2. No feds......

MT GUNNY
June 12, 2009, 06:50 PM
If this passes would California, Washington DC, and so on, have to accept my MT, CCP? Just like my Drivers license.
In a Sence It would Force Anti States to have CC Laws!

jbrown50
June 12, 2009, 07:24 PM
I also agree with Cougfan2. There's always a danger that you could open a can of worms, BUT, you can bet that if the antis thought they could get away with it they would pass a federal law that would ban reciprocity between the states and they wouldn't need a precedent to do it.

I do think the Feds could help though by declaring that concealed carry permits are to be recognized under Full Faith and Credit protection that is guaranteed in Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) tried this last year with HR 980.


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=363458

TAB
June 12, 2009, 08:10 PM
anyway you slice it, this is a bad bill.

It will not help the CCW cuase, it will hurt it.

Frog48
June 12, 2009, 08:55 PM
If the Fed controls the law, they can also pass amendments to weaken it or otherwise encumber concealed carry.

Exactly. It may start out as a great thing, but once the fed gets their foot in the door, theres no telling what will happen later down the road. "Slippery slope" comes to mind.

ChaoSS
June 12, 2009, 09:10 PM
So I want to know if this would force Illinois to accept concealed carry permits from other states. I also wonder if this would mean that Vermont would start issuing permits, the way I believe Alaska does.

pbearperry
June 12, 2009, 09:12 PM
So let me understand this.Some folks don't like the bill because ifit passes we can carry in all 50 states?
Or it's just that the Feds are getting their hands into it?

ConstitutionCowboy
June 12, 2009, 09:50 PM
If Congress wants to clear the way for us to carry our arms state-to-state, concealed or otherwise, it has the power to enforce the Second Amendment through Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress can tell the several states to cease and desist with any and all laws that conflict with the provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I think Congress ought to start with sanctions. Close military bases in states that infringe upon our RKBA. Neglect interstate highways where they pass through infringing states. Close most of the post offices. Call up the militia to arrest all state officials and hold those errant state governments in contempt of the Constitution until such time those state governments abolish all infringing laws.

That's the kind of Union interference into the affairs of the several states I could get behind.

There are similar things going on right now with some of the states expressing their desire to end federal mandates and other misprisions in areas where the Union has failed to abide the Tenth Amendment, so I think it is only right that the Union take command of the several states where it has the constitutional power to protect our rights. Isn't that the sort of thing that's supposed to happen with our separation and balance of powers?

Both the several states and the Union need to kick each other's arses where appropriate and stay out of each other's affairs as delineated in the Constitution. That's the only way we'll ever see our rights honored by either level of government. That's the only way We the People will benefit.

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
June 12, 2009, 10:00 PM
pbearperry,

It's that the Feds will get their hands into it in a way they shouldn't. It would be de facto recognition by Congress that the several state legislatures can regulate the keeping and bearing of arms. The goal of all these cases being brought before the Supreme Court is to ERADICATE these infringing laws. A bill such as this one would throw a monkey wrench into the works.

I would question the veracity of those in Congress who proposed and those who cosponsor this bill and any other such bills.

Woody

pbearperry
June 12, 2009, 10:41 PM
So because of mistrust of the Federal Govt. you would rather see this bill fail instead of being able to carry legally in all 50 states?There is no other way this will ever happen.All 50 states will never all agree,plain and simple.Prime example,Mass. recognizes no other states licenses to carry,and probably never will.

blakeci
June 12, 2009, 11:03 PM
This bill would not allow carry in all 50 states, it would only have all the states that have CC to recognize CWP's from other states. In other words, If you can legally carry in North Carolina and you are traveling in another state that allows its citizens to carry, then you're CWP is legal there also.

Blackbeard
June 12, 2009, 11:21 PM
I'd like to see a bill that forces states to recognize other states' gay marriages, and also forces them to recognize CCW licenses. I'd like to see people argue how only half of that should apply.

P.S. We could call it the "Marry-Carry Act"

ConstitutionCowboy
June 13, 2009, 12:20 AM
So because of mistrust of the Federal Govt. you would rather see this bill fail instead of being able to carry legally in all 50 states?

I didn't say "mistrust". I said it would be de facto recognition by the Feds that the states may regulate the keeping and bearing of arms(albeit unconstitutional). The reason I pointed that out is because the deeper and deeper government gets into our rights, the more and more difficult it will be to get them out.

There is no other way this will ever happen.

Look beyond "reciprocity" to the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. That is how it used to be, how it should be, and how it can be by simply removing the unconstitutional laws.



All 50 states will never all agree,plain and simple.Prime example,Mass. recognizes no other states licenses to carry,and probably never will.

Hence, the need to remove the unconstitutional laws.

Massachusetts wasn't always as bad as it is vis-a-vis arms. When I was growing up there in Massachusetts, It was quite normal to see kids, 14 years old and up, walking down the street during hunting season with their dad's shotgun. We'd set up a table and shoot my Dad's old trap door 45-70 at some old abandoned greenhouse foundations. No one got shot, either.

Woody

Ragnar Danneskjold
June 13, 2009, 12:33 AM
I agree with Cougfan as well. It reminds me of a quote that seems applicable, though I don't know where it's from.

"Do not judge legislation based on the good it will do when properly administered. Instead, always judge legislation on the harm it will cause when improperly administered"

If we give the feds authority over concealed carry in hopes that it will loosen restrictions for a few states, we also give them the authority to tighten restrictions for all states, or ban it completely.

bensdad
June 13, 2009, 12:46 AM
I'm with the "against" crowd (just like I was the last time this topic came up). Once the feds get involved, we'll have: 1) fingerprinting for the permit, 2) mandatory conceal (no oc), 3) standardized course requirements for the permit, 4) no carry where alcohol is served, 5) no carry in churches, 6) no carry in large venues, 6) bigger fee for the permit, 7) a whole new (massive) branch of the BATFE, 8) gun "safe function" check (like Michigan used to have), 8) only carry guns listed on your permit, 9) make up a silly rule the feds would dream up and insert it here.

This looks and feels good at first glance. They're smiling at us while they steal our wallets and strip our rights.

Lone_Gunman
June 13, 2009, 01:00 AM
I vote no for giving the federal government any more power over any issue dealing with guns, even if on the surface it initially appears to be a good idea.

I do not feel this is a pro gun law. It assumes that the RKBA should be subject to legislation controlling its exercise.

Ragnar Danneskjold
June 13, 2009, 01:05 AM
Lone Gunman is right. This bill assumes the false premise that the feds should have a say in this in the first place.

metallic
June 13, 2009, 04:45 PM
I'm with the "against" crowd (just like I was the last time this topic came up). Once the feds get involved, we'll have: 1) fingerprinting for the permit, 2) mandatory conceal (no oc), 3) standardized course requirements for the permit, 4) no carry where alcohol is served, 5) no carry in churches, 6) no carry in large venues, 6) bigger fee for the permit, 7) a whole new (massive) branch of the BATFE, 8) gun "safe function" check (like Michigan used to have), 8) only carry guns listed on your permit, 9) make up a silly rule the feds would dream up and insert it here.

I thought most states already required you to submit fingerprints with your CHP permit. Either way, I agree. The Fed would try to screw us and we would end up with an even stronger federal government and even weaker state governments. The balance of power needs to shift back to that of a republic.

rl2669
June 14, 2009, 07:40 PM
I have to agree with those who are against this proposal.

If there is a Federal level CCW reciprocity agreement, then at Federal level they'll have to harmonize all those pesky differences that the states have today about where its OK to carry (e.g. restaurants that serve alcohol, stadiums, churches), training requirements, license fees, etc.

I think we can all guess which way they'll come down on these restrictions (hint - it won't be "Vermont carry for all"). At the end of the day all you'll be left with is the ability to carry your firearm loaded in your car in each state.

This screams trojan horse.

pbearperry
June 14, 2009, 08:04 PM
The cop carry bill is a Federal Bill and so far so good.Why wouldn't the same bill for everyone else be any different?

Lone_Gunman
June 14, 2009, 08:10 PM
I was opposed to the cop carry bill also. So far so good? What does that mean?

TexasRifleman
June 14, 2009, 08:16 PM
I think we can all guess which way they'll come down on these restrictions (hint - it won't be "Vermont carry for all"). At the end of the day all you'll be left with is the ability to carry your firearm loaded in your car in each state.

That's the problem, and if you think the DOJ will treat us the same way they treat LEO's well...... I got a bridge to sell.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 14, 2009, 08:40 PM
I believe the goal of these "universal reciprocity" bills is to allow the several states to keep the underlying unconstitutional laws in place. These are the underlying laws that prohibit carrying a gun in the first place. Concealed carry laws are nothing more than exceptions to these underlying laws.

Placate the gun-carrying populace(those of us with CCW permits/licenses) with this kind of "universal reciprocity", and you silence millions of voices fighting to unfetter the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

HR218 - the police officer interstate concealed carry bill - silenced most of the thousands of police officers who were fighting along side us to be able to carry country wide. The divide and conquer, placate-a-segment-of-the-populace tactic was successful. Don't allow them another victory and make it harder to unfetter our rights.

Woody

pbearperry
June 14, 2009, 11:47 PM
So far so good means that since the law has been enacted,I have been able to carry all over the country.
I hate to tell ya guys,but I think you are over thinking this bill.I grew up in the 60's and one of the pet phrases I remember is"Paranoia will destroy ya".

TOTC
June 14, 2009, 11:55 PM
I believe this would weaken many states asserting their rights under the 10th amendment. I for one am no fan of federal control over a CCW and I will be getting a dog in this fight.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
June 15, 2009, 12:26 AM
Did anyone read the text?

1) The bill doesn't allow you to carry in all 50 states.
2) The bill doesn't require ANY state to allow conceal carry
3) There is no "standardizing of anything" in the bill.

The ONLY thing the bill says is IF (meaning state don't have to issue CCW) a state issues CCW then need to honor CCW issued by other states. Just like we do with marriage licenses, and pilot licenses, and driver's licenses.

IF a state (like IL) doesn't want CCW then fine. They don't have to issue permits and neither residents nor people traveling can carry.
If a state (like 48 states) wants CCW then they must accept CCW from other states.

I am just wondering if anyone actually read the bill?
Step 1) Read the bill
Step 2) Decide if bill is good idea.

Seems like everyone jumped to #2 and assumed a lot of stuff.

A BILL

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

`(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

It actually is an incredibly simple bill. A good bill IMHO. One with no federal oversight or "standardization"

I have a CCW from VA. The feds don't change anything about how to get a CCW from VA. That is up to the state of VA.
I travel to NC. The ONLY thing the bill does is require NC to accept by CCW as if it was from NC (because NC provides CCW). Period.

The "standards" i.e. where, when, how I can carry is up to...... <drum roll> NC.
Just as it is now except we have uniform reciprocity like we do with every other license.
It will replace the patchwork of reciprocity agreements which are constantly shifting. Sometimes states fail to resign reciprocity agreements and technically residents traveling to other states are committing felonies until the agreements get resigned. Often resources for verifying current reciprocity are out of date. It creates a burden on citzens who travel where one shouldn't exist.

There would be one reciprocity map.
If you have a CCW from any one of the 48 non red states then you can carry in all 48 non red states. The map would only need to be updated if/when a state goes from no CCW to issuing CCW or vice versa.

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/maps/2006.gif

What it will really shake up is the 9 "may issue" states. They can restrict CCW permits to the rich, the connected, and the powerful but can't restrict neighboring states citizens who travel into their state. Likely we will see the "may issue" states finally get off the pot or ****. They will likely move to either no issue or shall issue.

41022collector
June 15, 2009, 01:11 AM
Regardless of how simple the bill is, if you think in your right mind that the feds will not eventually hand down a laundry list of HOW TO ISSUE a CCW according to the Feds, you are dreaming.

I have a CCW from Ohio.

Yes I read the bill, I do not like feds getting into my biz anymore than they have already. By them controlling recip, they will also eventually control what you can carry and how. It is bad enough that the state level even has a say so, but to allow the feds to have the access to the states on firearms control, even what seems like a great bill up front. Just allow the left of center dems and their follwers the chance to dig their nails into who, what, when, where and how... we will all be carrying single shot, orange, pump air pistols with frangible BB's.... they will do this as they do with all other interstate federal laws, they will refuse funding for something or another until the individual states bend to their demands.

The 10th Amendment only protects us if we have the people in State offices willing to use it. So far Montana and Tex are getting the ball rolling.

It cracks me up that in Ohio, you can with a CCW, carry just about anything legal for you to own, just short of a nuke if you are walking. But.... in a car, it is ONE loaded piece within plain sight w/o a search and must have something orange on the piece, visable from 270 degrees on it's side. I glue orange polymer strips on the bottom on the mags on my Para Warthog. Otherwise I use orange duct tape1/4" strip around the barrel or down each side of a slide. PLUS if you are stopped, you must with in an arbbitrary time, announce you are a CCW holder and that you have a firearm in the car. Otherwise, they can and have arrested people for NOT saying so within the first 5 seconds of window contact. I now keep a damn orange printer bumper sticker in my rear right window as well as a see through orange window sticker on the inside of the drivers side window announcing I am carrying and have a CCW.

So yes I read the bill, I do not want it.....I do not care how safe you think it is worded. :banghead:

regards
Mike

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2009, 01:38 AM
So far so good means that since the law has been enacted,I have been able to carry all over the country.

Thats good for you, but bad for the rest of us who are now 2nd class citizens.

bensdad
June 15, 2009, 01:48 AM
So far so good means that since the law has been enacted,I have been able to carry all over the country.
I hate to tell ya guys,but I think you are over thinking this bill.I grew up in the 60's and one of the pet phrases I remember is"Paranoia will destroy ya".

It created a class system. Some of us aren't real fond of that. It was the camel's nose under the tent. 845 is the rest of its head. For those who recognize this fact, good on ya. For those who don't, keep trying. We're here to help.

Birdmang
June 15, 2009, 01:53 AM
Lets get the big #2 incorporated first, its on its way.

zoom6zoom
June 15, 2009, 02:08 AM
41022 - the plain sight provision for carry in a vehicle has been removed from the law. Also no mention of orange stuff that will make it look like a toy.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf

thesolidus
June 15, 2009, 03:04 AM
So, living in California I'd still have to get a CCW here first right?
Or should I apply for a CCW in Utah (and the 16 state compact) and hope that it grandfathers me in?

ConstitutionCowboy
June 15, 2009, 12:09 PM
Doesn't matter how "simple" this bill is, it is still the federal government saying it's OK for the states to govern the keeping and bearing of arms contrary to the Constitution at the Second Added Article to the Constitution(commonly called the Second Amendment).

`(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit in any State that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

This is the worst part:

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

That is the open door Congress or maybe even some bureaucracy needs to add to this legislation some time in the future to impose conditions, limits and prohibitions.

There is nothing to be gained for We the People from this bill or any bill like it. It looks like a nice carrot dangling out there, but when you bite into it, all you'll taste is crap and the orange paint used to disguise it.

Woody

ArmedBear
June 15, 2009, 12:16 PM
Constitution Cowboy, you have shown that you are consistently opposed to any Federal legislation that would restrict states' ability to limit the rights of their citizens.

That is the open door Congress or maybe even some bureaucracy needs to add to this legislation some time in the future to impose conditions, limits and prohibitions.

How?

You're saying that Oregon having to recognize my Idaho permit is a bad thing?

Oregon recognizes no other states' permits right now.

What, exactly, could make that worse?

Do you have a problem with states recognizing drivers' licenses from other states?

Why are you so attached to the power of each state to restrict the rights of Ameican citizens? What, exactly, is the reason for that? (I seem to recall only seeing similar posts from you in any thread regarding a Federal bill that supports individual rights across state lines.)

Have you worked to repeal the 14th Amendment? If not, why not? Clearly, you oppose it.

To everyone who thinks this bill is bad: you may be right. However, I don't think it's productive to automatically oppose any bill that does not read, "Everyone on American soil shall be allowed to carry any weapon, openly or concealed, in any place, at any time, under any circumstances or conditions."

Lone Gunman, for example, writes as his reason for opposition: "It assumes that the RKBA should be subject to legislation controlling its exercise."

Well, duh.

That's true about every right we have, though.

In the REAL WORLD, having the 2nd Amendment elevated to the level of every other right in the Consitution, one step at a time, is probably the only way we'll get any improvement. IMO, it IS the only way.

The "all or nothing" mentality is a great way to feel self-satisfied, but it accomplishes nothing in the political world. It's the reason I quit renewing my Libertarian Party membership.

The "wars are won by winning battles and advancing" philosophy is why, for all its faults, real and imagined, I support the NRA.

Incremental change works. It's how our system works, like it or not.

Frog48
June 15, 2009, 12:49 PM
What it will really shake up is the 9 "may issue" states. They can restrict CCW permits to the rich, the connected, and the powerful but can't restrict neighboring states citizens who travel into their state.

If nationwide reciprocity became law, "May-Issue" states could effectively become irrelevant. Residents of Cali/Mass/NY/Iowa/etc could easily obtain non-resident licenses from another state (Florida and Utah seem to be popular), and be good-to-go.

ArmedBear
June 15, 2009, 01:00 PM
Smart shall-issue states might see this as a revenue source.

California won't become a "no-issue" state, for example. Do they really want to make it illegal for hollywood celebrities and big political donors to get CCW permits? I don't think they do.

ArmedBear
June 15, 2009, 01:03 PM
Thats good for you, but bad for the rest of us who are now 2nd class citizens.


So move. Stop paying taxes to support government that you opposem, and that corruption will keep in place. Do your part to let Illinois die on the vine.

DammitBoy
June 15, 2009, 01:24 PM
States issue driver's licenses. Every state honors every other states DL's.

How is the federal government involved?

What would be different about CCW's?

ArmedBear
June 15, 2009, 01:34 PM
How is the federal government involved?


I don't believe there's a specific Federal statute addressing it.

However, Federal courts have found that states' failure to recognize drivers' licenses of other states is a violation of the Constitution, as an unlawful restriction of interstate commerce.

Therefore, law or no law, it is the Federal government (the Judicial Branch) that has forced states to reciprocate driving priveleges.

Once upon a time, some states tried to require their own drivers' licenses for those who were just passing through in their vehicles.

ArmedBear
June 15, 2009, 01:41 PM
BTW as a pragmatist, I see good reason for this law.

I live somewhat close to the Third World (Eastern Oregon). Our local Interstate can land you there, on the way to other places in Idaho.

Oregon doesn't recognize Idaho permits, and is known for being EXTREMELY restrictive in their issuing out-of-state permits. So, I'm driving along, on the way to Northern Idaho, and I end up in Oregon for a little bit. If I have my gun in my pocket, I'm a criminal, even though I'm traveling between two points in Idaho.

This shouldn't be.

pbearperry
June 15, 2009, 01:43 PM
I am starting to think that there are some people here that will never be satisfied with anything.I don't care what gives us the right to carry in all 50 states,just as long as it happens.Maybe some just love to bitch?

TheWarhammer
June 15, 2009, 01:46 PM
BTW as a pragmatist, I see good reason for this law.

I live somewhat close to the Third World (Eastern Oregon). Our local Interstate can land you there, on the way to other places in Idaho.

Oregon doesn't recognize Idaho permits, and is known for being EXTREMELY restrictive in their issuing out-of-state permits. So, I'm driving along, on the way to Northern Idaho, and I end up in Oregon for a little bit. If I have my gun in my pocket, I'm a criminal, even though I'm traveling between two points in Idaho.

This shouldn't be.

Oregon is an open carry state. When you hit the Oregon border, either pull your gun out and lay it on the seat or dash, or move you holster/concealing garment so that the gun is not longer concealed. When you leave Oregon, put your gun back away.

ArmedBear
June 15, 2009, 01:52 PM
Oregon is an open carry state, but local jurisdictions can ban open carry to all but holders of valid concealed carry permits.

Open carry in some places, without a valid concealed carry permit, is still a crime in Oregon.

Stupid? Yes. But it's Oregon.:D

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2009, 01:53 PM
So move. Stop paying taxes to support government that you opposem, and that corruption will keep in place. Do your part to let Illinois die on the vine.

Illinois? I am in Georgia.

ArmedBear
June 15, 2009, 02:00 PM
What's with "USSO" then?

ConstitutionCowboy
June 15, 2009, 02:13 PM
Constitution Cowboy, you have shown that you are consistently opposed to any Federal legislation that would restrict states' ability to limit the rights of their citizens.

This bill and any like it do not restrict the states "ability" to limit the rights of their citizens. This bill supports the underlying unconstitutional laws by giving recognition to the laws that are exceptions to the underlying laws.

I've outlined federal law that I would support that would remove the restrictions to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

If Congress wants to clear the way for us to carry our arms state-to-state, concealed or otherwise, it has the power to enforce the Second Amendment through Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress can tell the several states to cease and desist with any and all laws that conflict with the provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I think Congress ought to start with sanctions. Close military bases in states that infringe upon our RKBA. Neglect interstate highways where they pass through infringing states. Close most of the post offices. Call up the militia to arrest all state officials and hold those errant state governments in contempt of the Constitution until such time those state governments abolish all infringing laws.

That's the kind of Union interference into the affairs of the several states I could get behind.

There are similar things going on right now with some of the states expressing their desire to end federal mandates and other misprisions in areas where the Union has failed to abide the Tenth Amendment, so I think it is only right that the Union take command of the several states where it has the constitutional power to protect our rights. Isn't that the sort of thing that's supposed to happen with our separation and balance of powers?

Both the several states and the Union need to kick each other's arses where appropriate and stay out of each other's affairs as delineated in the Constitution. That's the only way we'll ever see our rights honored by either level of government. That's the only way We the People will benefit.

Woody

Please don't mis-characterize me. It shows how weak your arguments are and is an insult to honest discourse.

Woody

ArmedBear
June 15, 2009, 02:19 PM
I think Congress ought to start with sanctions. Close military bases in states that infringe upon our RKBA. Neglect interstate highways where they pass through infringing states. Close most of the post offices. Call up the militia to arrest all state officials and hold those errant state governments in contempt of the Constitution until such time those state governments abolish all infringing laws.


This is an insult to honest discourse.

It's not going to happen, and if it did, I doubt it would pass constitutional muster.

Your suggesting things that won't happen as your proposed solutions, combined with your serial objections to Federal interference with "states' rights" to restrict individuals as the states see fit, don't add up to anything "honest", Cowboy. It's just a rant.

Furthermore, if Congress passed a law requiring all states to remove all restrictions from concealed carry by law-abiding citizens, would you really support it?

Have you changed your mind about states' rights?

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2009, 02:25 PM
Well, it doesn't really matter how some of you guys feel. This bill will have no chance of passing, and is really just a waste of time and money to even attempt it.

Rellian
June 15, 2009, 02:26 PM
Once you let the feds in, they have more say. You give them more say and you are subject to their capricious nature to a greater degree. Don't let the camel in the tent!

Superpsy
June 15, 2009, 02:38 PM
41022collector, sent you a pm.

usmarine0352_2005
June 15, 2009, 03:34 PM
.

What do you think the chances of this passing are?

.

Lone_Gunman
June 15, 2009, 03:38 PM
Zero, no chance at all it will pass. It is a waste of time and money. Anti-gun people will not support it, and half the pro-gun people will not.

tube_ee
June 15, 2009, 03:45 PM
the logic that says that the Feds have no role here.

It is our position that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, free (to the maximum extent possible) from the regulatory and police powers of government. We also believe that , through the 14th Amendment (and the Supremacy Clause, for those of us who believe that Barron was wrongly decided), that protection applies to State and local governments.

We're talking about the Federal Constitution, right?

How can it be consistently claimed that the Federal government has no role in enforcing a right enshrined in the Federal Constitution?

Color me confused.

--Shannon

ArmedBear
June 15, 2009, 04:19 PM
How can it be consistently claimed that the Federal government has no role in enforcing a right enshrined in the Federal Constitution?


Simply, it can't.

I just think some people are sore about legalized sodomy in Texas, etc.

Let the Feds in, and pretty soon they won't let your local cops bust down doors at night and arrest gay people.

You wouldn't want your freedom to tell other people what to do in their own homes to be infringed on by the Feds, would you?

(An argument can be made that the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid state and local laws that require the execution of homosexuals and witches... Not even THAT argument can be made about RKBA.)

The post-Civil War 14th Amendment adds an explicit Federal responsibility: enforcing guarantees of fundamental individual rights against the states.

Big Mike
June 15, 2009, 07:52 PM
Where is this bill in the committee process?

Google is my friend: Senate, April 21, 2009, was read and introduced.

Companion bill in the House is 197. No action since February 09, 2009 when it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

I believe these have been discussed in previous threads.

Big Mike
June 15, 2009, 07:59 PM
Where is this bill in the committee process?

wyofool
June 15, 2009, 09:06 PM
Many of you are right that this bill wouldn't pass on its own. The push is (and should be) as an amendment to the "The Matthew Shepard Act". Because of the "feel good" aspect of the bill many in Congress think it will be passed. So like the Credit Card bill this could be the best way to get the "Reciprocal Conceal Carry" into law.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 15, 2009, 10:12 PM
ArmedBear

I don't know if I can clear this up with you in one post, but I'll try.

I think Congress ought to start with sanctions. Close military bases in states that infringe upon our RKBA. Neglect interstate highways where they pass through infringing states. Close most of the post offices. Call up the militia to arrest all state officials and hold those errant state governments in contempt of the Constitution until such time those state governments abolish all infringing laws.

This is an insult to honest discourse.

It's not going to happen, and if it did, I doubt it would pass constitutional muster.

Everything I suggested is within Congress's purview.

Your suggesting things that won't happen as your proposed solutions, combined with your serial objections to Federal interference with "states' rights" to restrict individuals as the states see fit, don't add up to anything "honest", Cowboy. It's just a rant.

First, whether these things even get proposed is a long shot, to be sure. But, I have long suggested that Congress take charge of the situation with its power in the Fourteenth Amendment to order the several states to cease and desist with the unconstitutional infringements upon our right to keep and bear arms. This bill does not do that.

Second, states do not have rights. States have powers, and only those powers in their constitutions that do not conflict with the Constitution and the laws of the Union. State laws that limit, prohibit and in any way govern the keeping and bearing of arms are contrary to the Constitution. This would include state laws that "grant permission" for the carrying of arms(in any fashion). These are the laws that need to be challenged in court, repealed by the several state legislatures, or negated by law from Congress. This bill only entrenches the unconstitutional law.


Furthermore, if Congress passed a law requiring all states to remove all restrictions from concealed carry by law-abiding citizens, would you really support it?

In a heartbeat. To do that, the states would have to remove any laws that make it "necessary" to have concealed carry provisions in the first place. Those laws are the underlying unconstitutional laws infringing upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.


Have you changed your mind about states' rights?

As I stated, states do not have rights. Only people have rights. What's to change?

The bottom line is that we both want to carry our arms everywhere we go, state to state, town to town. My way of bringing it about is constitutional, is the way it is supposed to be - unfettered. Your way accepts state law governing the manner in which you may carry and where. Your way would allow the Union in the mix. Even if you are of the ilk that still thinks the Second Amendment only limits the Union, you'd have to be willing to allow the Union to infringe upon your Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for that is exactly what this legislation would do. It would be the Union accepting that the several state's laws must have some legitimacy and would, therefore, be complicit in the infringements the state laws represent.

I'm not willing to complicate the matter. It's difficult enough to unfetter our rights as it stands. Why make it harder and more precarious? In the light of the recent victory in DC v. Heller, we stand a great chance of having the Second Amendment "incorporated" to the states. (In my reading of the Constitution, the Second Amendment has applied to all government from it's inception, but since the Court has taken it upon itself to be the arbiter of what the Fourteenth Amendment says, once the Court "incorporates" it, it'll be as if the Second Amendment applied to all levels of government from the get go.)

I know you understand this concept of the power granted to Congress in the Fourteenth Amendment to reign in the several states when they run afoul of our rights:

The post-Civil War 14th Amendment adds an explicit Federal responsibility: enforcing guarantees of fundamental individual rights against the states.

The way to go about this is to use that power in the Fourteenth to clear off the unconstitutional state laws. Federally mandated reciprocity is not the way to go. It is subject to constitutional scrutiny(it can disappear nearly as fast as Congress can pass it), and would be subject to Congressional and bureaucratic abuse if allowed to stand.

Woody

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state. The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859

It seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. This was prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, too.

gimlet1/21
June 15, 2009, 11:04 PM
I wonder if we could force the issue, by flooding the court dockets across the country with individual suits? If every State simultaneously had thousands of cases of infringed "Constitutional Rights" what might happen? Would they all be forced to refer to the recent pro- gun rulings? Am I wrong in thinking this would be a more effective movement than marching on Washington? (I will participate in the march!!)

ConstitutionCowboy
June 16, 2009, 12:14 AM
I wonder if we could force the issue, by flooding the court dockets across the country with individual suits?

I've suggested this before and I think it has possibilities. The only way to put a stop to the lawsuits would be to remove the infringements or amend the Constitution.

One problem would be if all the cases were to be rolled into one class action suit. If each case involved a defendant instead of a plaintiff, it might avoid the class action, which would mean each person involved would have to violate an unconstitutional law, be arrested and charged.

We need a very wealthy supporter of the Second Amendment to bankroll this. Earth to NRA...Earth to NRA...Come in NRA...

Woody

t165
June 16, 2009, 01:14 AM
Perhaps we should round up all the Feds (the they, them bunch) and send them back to the country "they" came from. Oh wait..."they" are American Citizens..."they" are one of us.

Okay...perhaps we should round up all the politicians at the federal level and send them back to whatever foreign country they came from. OOPS! I just realized "they" are American Citizens too...one of us.

Who's to blame for all these "theys" and "thems" and the dumb laws "they" and "them" pass and enforce? How did these federal authorities obtain their power? Well...Humm! I guess that would be by us voting American Citizens. We are to blame. Perhaps we are a voting minority and this is just how our political system works. Paranoid fear of the federal government, our government, does not make any sense to me. True, we may not get our way all the time, and I am a supporter of the 2nd, but why does it seem everytime someone does not get their way the Government and it's employees get trashed. I have no problem arguing and criticizing a politician...that is the nature of their job. Their positions on political issues are made known to the citizens and we, the voting citizens, steer the ship through our vote. But trashing the various domestic federal enforcement agencies does not seem fair. The laws "they" are sworn to enforce are crafted by the politicians we, the voting citizens, place into power. We have only ourselves to blame if we do not like/agree with the federal laws and their enforcement.

Now I have to go find my fire extinguisher. :uhoh:

t165
June 16, 2009, 01:21 AM
Perhaps

hvengel
June 18, 2009, 12:46 AM
The ONLY thing the bill says is IF (meaning state don't have to issue CCW) a state issues CCW then need to honor CCW issued by other states. Just like we do with marriage licenses, and pilot licenses, and driver's licenses.

Pilots licenses are issued by the Feds. The FAA to be exact. There is no such thing as a state issued pilots license.

But other than that the above is correct and there are many other licenses that are covered under the current full faith and credit clause. For example your car or truck license plates. Boats are also covered as are other things.

freewheeling
July 17, 2009, 10:14 PM
The best chance of something like this passing congress is to take the route used in the parks legislation, and fold it into another bill that's supported by the ruling party. A stand-alone bill co-sponsored mostly by Republicans has no chance. In fact, the only reason it's introduced is to score political points with a constituency.

Folding it into the Shephard Act is an interesting way to go, but the only leverage you'd have for that is if the Shephard Act needed some Republican or Blue Dog sponsorship that it wouldn't otherwise get. I don't think it does, so far. (Which sure doesn't mean I think it's good law.)

As for the constitutional issues and the precedent set by establishing federal control over state discretion, I can see rather compelling arguments on both sides. On one hand, if blanket CCW isn't a fundamental constitutional right then states ought to be able to set their own standards. If it is, then it needs no statutory authority to back it up. But the problem is that there's a long history of denying a blanket right to carry concealed, so it's unlikely that such a blanket right would be established at this late date. Not in one fell swoop, anyway.

Which means, it's not a perfect world.

freewheeling
July 17, 2009, 11:48 PM
The bottom line is that we both want to carry our arms everywhere we go, state to state, town to town. My way of bringing it about is constitutional, is the way it is supposed to be - unfettered.

As an ideal this is fine, as long as you recognize that it's simply not going to happen. There is a long history of suppressing the unfettered right to carry concealed in this country, so a new understanding of such a right, that has been routinely breached, would have to disavow that history. (The Earps in Dodge City, for instance.) That's about as likely as the sun rising in the West.

That said, it's certainly possible to expand reciprocity so that a CCW in one state is recognized by almost all other states (say over 75%). If federalism acts as a brake to that expansion, it also acts as a brake to contraction. It's possible to pose a reasonable argument to the voting populations of most states to favor reciprocity agreements, even without establishing a universal standard (for instance, by mixing and aggregating resident and not resident permits, even if the states aren't individually reciprocated).

Classical liberal ideals don't guarantee a perfect world, or even a consistently just world. They merely guarantee that we tend to move in the right general direction, in the long run. It's the worst possible system, except for everything else.

meytind
July 18, 2009, 11:54 AM
Found this pre-written letter on gunowners.org:
Dear Senator:

Please support the Thune/Vitter amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. This amendment will protect the right of citizens to carry firearms outside of their home state without violating the rights of the other states. Thus, the reciprocity language masterfully protects the principle of federalism while also promoting Second Amendment rights.

A person's right to defend himself and his family should not end at the border of his state.

I urge you to vote for the Thune/Vitter concealed carry amendment and to oppose any modifying actions that seek to weaken their amendment.

Sincerely,

Send it to all your senators.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 18, 2009, 02:25 PM
The bottom line is that we both want to carry our arms everywhere we go, state to state, town to town. My way of bringing it about is constitutional, is the way it is supposed to be - unfettered.

As an ideal this is fine, as long as you recognize that it's simply not going to happen. There is a long history of suppressing the unfettered right to carry concealed in this country, so a new understanding of such a right, that has been routinely breached, would have to disavow that history. (The Earps in Dodge City, for instance.) That's about as likely as the sun rising in the West.

That said, it's certainly possible to expand reciprocity so that a CCW in one state is recognized by almost all other states (say over 75%). If federalism acts as a brake to that expansion, it also acts as a brake to contraction. It's possible to pose a reasonable argument to the voting populations of most states to favor reciprocity agreements, even without establishing a universal standard (for instance, by mixing and aggregating resident and not resident permits, even if the states aren't individually reciprocated).

Classical liberal ideals don't guarantee a perfect world, or even a consistently just world. They merely guarantee that we tend to move in the right general direction, in the long run. It's the worst possible system, except for everything else.

It is just as simple for Congress to pass law with their power in the Fourteenth Amendment to order the states to cease and desist infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Congress already used this power to stop the frivolous law suits against the gun industry.

Congress can also tell the states that infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be used as a measure to control or attempt to prevent crime. There are better ways to prevent the use of firearms by dangerous individuals such as death, incarceration, institutionalization, and guardianship.

It isn't "ideal", it's common sense. Saying it's simply not going to happen is to give up before you even try, or to fall in line and agree with the anti-gun-rights crowd, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein , et al.

Congress does not need to "recognize" an authority none of the several states have under the Second Amendment and further enhanced by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Don't tell me it can't be done or won't be done - unless you are on the side of the anti-gun-rights, Second-Amendment-be-damed crowd.

Woody

C. Rabbit
July 18, 2009, 09:46 PM
Don't tell me it can't be done or won't be done - unless you are on the side of the anti-gun-rights, Second-Amendment-be-damed crowd.

Getting congress to force the states to allow unfettered concealed carry in the way you propose will not be done and can not be done.

It is a political impossibility. Whether it is theoretically possible is of no use. To me, because of the practical impossibility of your suggestion, trying to solve the issue your way is a waste of time.

You can write all you want about how it's the constitutionally pure way. It doesn't matter for anything other than academic arguing. I'm not anti-gun or anti-constitution or any other ridiculous charge. I am simply pro-results.

This bill represents the best shot at getting large scale CCW reciprocation. It's not perfect, but your ideal way would not happen in the foreseeable future.

As for the feds 'getting in'. This bill doesn't give them control, it simply makes CPLs like drivers licenses. They don't control the law, and wouldn't have any more control than they do now.

The Feds would not be able to do anything they can't do right now.

Remember - the perfect is the enemy of the good. This is good. Do not let striving for perfection lead you to destroy the good.

As for chances of passing - well who thought that National Parks carry would get passed?

CR

AKElroy
July 18, 2009, 09:52 PM
Would this fall in as an interstate commerce issue thereby making Federal Jurisdiction constitutional and thus forcing states to have reciprocity? In which case, why would it stop at only the states that currently allow CCW permits?...

Anything done federally can be undone just as easily. Right now, they have no jurisdiction to regulate intrastate carry laws. This could potentially create that opened door for bad actors down the line. I live in Texas, and the only states I am interested in visiting all have reciprocity with my CHL. This needs to stay a states rights issue. No feds, please.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 18, 2009, 11:50 PM
Getting congress to force the states to allow unfettered concealed carry in the way you propose will not be done and can not be done.

Will not be done might be the case, but can not be done is just plain wrong. This currently proposed law would force the states to allow concealed carry, but my proposal wouldn't force the several states to do anything. It would prohibit the several states to infringe upon the right, therefore, there would be no need for concealed carry laws. "Incorporation" would basically do the same thing I propose, except it would be accomplished by the Court instead of how it should be done through the actual, real, honest-to-goodness, can't be misconstrued power granted to Congress in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
July 19, 2009, 12:03 AM
As for the feds 'getting in'. This bill doesn't give them control, it simply makes CPLs like drivers licenses. They don't control the law, and wouldn't have any more control than they do now.

Fed control or no makes no difference. The problem is the recognition by the Feds of the current unconstitutional laws in the several states; the laws that force us to get a permit in the first place. Fed recognition means it's now tougher to unfetter the right. Sorry if it seems futile to you, but I'll not stop the charge. Someone must speak up of how it's supposed to be. Someone must stand up for the Constitution and our God given, inherent, inalienable rights. Fortunately, I'm just one of many.

Woody

mblat
July 19, 2009, 12:09 AM
Fed control or no makes no difference. The problem is the recognition by the Feds of the current unconstitutional laws in the several states; the laws that force us to get a permit in the first place. Fed recognition means it's now tougher to unfetter the right. Sorry if it seems futile to you, but I'll not stop the charge. Someone must speak up of how it's supposed to be. Someone must stand up for the Constitution and our God given, inherent, inalienable rights. Fortunately, I'm just one of many.

Woody

With all due respect concealed carry has been regulated nearly from the moment this country was created.
If nothing else SCOTUS hinted that regulation and even outright prohibition of CC is constitutional.
Just because we want CC be a right it doesn't mean it is. <shrugs> This is good bill. I am from California - so it won't help me in any way.... but it is still good bill.

AKElroy
July 19, 2009, 12:14 AM
Someone must stand up for the Constitution and our God given, inherent, inalienable rights. Fortunately, I'm just one of many.

Well said. Maybe one day I will be able to express it as well as you, my friend. Keep up the good work---

Lance

TAB
July 19, 2009, 01:12 AM
so let me get this strait... its ok to support one amendment, by throwing another under the bus?

that is what this bill does.

lets just say for the sake of argument, this bill passes. The ink will not even be dry on Obamas sig before several states take it to court. heller was a 5-4 split, what do you think the odds of it standing up in court will be?

if its struct down, we now have case law against any other simlar laws saying they are no good.

if its upheld, we just threw out the 10a.

mblat
July 19, 2009, 02:29 AM
so let me get this strait... its ok to support one amendment, by throwing another under the bus?

that is what this bill does.

lets just say for the sake of argument, this bill passes. The ink will not even be dry on Obamas sig before several states take it to court. heller was a 5-4 split, what do you think the odds of it standing up in court will be?

if its struct down, we now have case law against any other simlar laws saying they are no good.

if its upheld, we just threw out the 10a.

Shrugs - this is patently wrong. If there is any issue that can be matter of interstate commence this is the one.
It is no different that making everybody recognize marriage licenses. You are not trying to tell me that when that happened it somehow killed 10A?

As far as SCOTUS.... hmmm..... I would think that this will be better than 5-4. After all this is clearly interstate issue and congress has power regulate it. We may not like it.... but it does.....

C. Rabbit
July 19, 2009, 02:50 AM
This currently proposed law would force the states to allow concealed carry, but my proposal wouldn't force the several states to do anything. It would prohibit the several states to infringe upon the right, therefore, there would be no need for concealed carry laws.

It seems to me that your proposal would simply force them not to have any laws against concealed carry.

The problem is the recognition by the Feds of the current unconstitutional laws in the several states; the laws that force us to get a permit in the first place. Fed recognition means it's now tougher to unfetter the right.

I'd like to have Vermont/Alaska style carry nationwide. I think it is right. But the SCOTUS will approve current shall issue CCW laws as constitutional.
I don't think this law will do much to make it more difficult to change one state's laws to Vermont/Alaska style carry. I don't really see the reasoning behind that. Will state legislators say they only resist changing the law to V/A carry because of this bill?

Sorry if it seems futile to you, but I'll not stop the charge. Someone must speak up of how it's supposed to be.

It seems worse than futile. Like I said, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I believe this bill would help us, and greatly enhance our rights. I think there is little practical value to be gained if it does not pass. I believe, therefore, that opposing this is a net loss.

Right now, they have no jurisdiction to regulate intrastate carry laws

They won't have any more after the passage of this bill.

if its upheld, we just threw out the 10a.

1) I must disagree - from the 14th Congress has the power to enforce the rights of citizens against the states. 2) What's left of the 10th to throw out anyway?

Now, this bill would be an excellent way to ram some freedom into the faces of people who run states like New Jersey. Yes, Federal laws have caused great pain in the past. But that doesn't mean all will. This is a chance to make an enormous stride for freedom, by making nationwide reciprocation of CPLs a reality. We shouldn't hesitate from paranoia. If there is a danger in this bill, I'd heed the warnings, but general statements about "the fed" don't convince me.

CR

TAB
July 19, 2009, 03:09 AM
It is no different that making everybody recognize marriage licenses

there is federal law that states do not have to take gay or common law marrages from other states. when it comes to taxs, they are not counted on the federal level. so thats a really bad example

ConstitutionCowboy
July 19, 2009, 12:25 PM
Shrugs - this is patently wrong. If there is any issue that can be matter of interstate commence this is the one.

You assume the current uses of the Commerce Clause are constitutional.


It is no different that making everybody recognize marriage licenses.

Marriage licenses are covered under Article IV, Section 1, a specific power granted to Congress. It's constitutional. Marriage comes under the heading of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. This says nothing about laws. Laws prohibit things.

You are not trying to tell me that when that happened it somehow killed 10A?

A power granted to Congress such as in Article IV, Section 1, would be a power delegated to the Union by the Constitution. Since it's not a power not delegated to the Union, it is not a power reserved to the states or to the people.

Don't forget that the Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. All that needs to be done is abide the Constitution and you can carry wherever you go. See how simple it is?

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
July 19, 2009, 12:43 PM
With all due respect concealed carry has been regulated nearly from the moment this country was created.

And how does this make it constitutional?

If nothing else SCOTUS hinted that regulation and even outright prohibition of CC is constitutional.

Example?

Just because we want CC be a right it doesn't mean it is.

It IS a right. "Carry" makes no distinction between open, concealed, drug behind you on a string, pushed in front of you in a wheelbarrow, or as a hood ornament on your vehicle.

Woody

xorbe
July 19, 2009, 01:56 PM
Well it doesn't help Californians anyways, since we can't reasonably get CCW permit in the first place, unless I'm missing something here ...

mblat
July 19, 2009, 05:45 PM
Originally Posted by mblat
With all due respect concealed carry has been regulated nearly from the moment this country was created.
And how does this make it constitutional?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
If nothing else SCOTUS hinted that regulation and even outright prohibition of CC is constitutional.
Example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
Just because we want CC be a right it doesn't mean it is.
It IS a right. "Carry" makes no distinction between open, concealed, drug behind you on a string, pushed in front of you in a wheelbarrow, or as a hood ornament on your vehicle.

Woody
ConstitutionCowboy is offline

When courts looking what is constitutional historical precedent (on how thgis particular rule was interpreted) plays no small role. So, while historical precedent not necessarily deciding factor it isn't small one either.
As far as an example of SCOTUS implying that regulation of CC is constitutional - just read Heller - it is there..
And lastly. Every right ( and I admit I should've phrased it more accuratly ) is subject to regulation. For example - you right to gather for political rally doesn't prevent a city to require you obtain the permit for hold one. Or require that you hold it in certain place at certain time......
Same with "Carry". Word "Carry" seems to give you right to carry ( huh ), however it doesn't mean that CC HAS to be legal. It seems that as long as some form functional carry is allowed ( meaning carrying loaded gun ) in some manner ( open carry, for example ) all other modes of carry can be forbidden. I may not like it. I would LOVE Alaska/Vermont style carry. And I think most of us agree that CC is more practical than open carry, for many reasons.
But I think that in this particular case you reading something in the Constitution that isn't there.

Besides. Short of civil war Constitution says only what SCOTUS decides it says.

Well it doesn't help Californians anyways, since we can't reasonably get CCW permit in the first place, unless I'm missing something here ...

It helps future federal lawsuit on the subject.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 19, 2009, 08:47 PM
As far as an example of SCOTUS implying that regulation of CC is constitutional - just read Heller - it is there..

What the Supreme Court really said in DC v. Heller:

In DC v. Heller. at 54, Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

This excerpt contains "purpose" which the Second Amendment does not protect. It is also pertinent to note that it doesn't make much difference whether the right secured by the Second Amendment should be unlimited or not. The Founding Fathers secured the right as if it is unlimited. I, for one, believe it is unlimited as did the Founding Fathers. How else could We the People grant unlimited power to the Union to defend us if we didn't have that unlimited power ourselves?

Further along at 54 and 55, Scalia wrote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

(Note the footnote #26 which we'll get to in a minute.) Scalia did not say all the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are sacrosanct or are "reasonable restrictions". He wrote that they didn't do a complete analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment and could not say those "restrictions" were in doubt without a complete analysis. He left it wide open for a future analysis to make such a definitive call. All he said was that such a call wasn't made in this deliberation(DC v. Heller).

Now I'll address Footnote 26 in which Scalia wrote:

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

What can we glean from this? That his list of restrictions was incomplete? Yes, but more important is the inclusion of the phrase "presumptively lawful". The opinion of the Court is only PRESUMING these regulatory measures("reasonable restrictions") are constitutional. That's twice Scalia made that point. This is the Court passing the buck on to the next case to come along that would address the issue of the constitutionality of all of these presumptively - for the time being - lawful regulatory measures.

There is a reason the issue of these presumptively lawful regulatory measures was not addressed. My guess would be to secure a fifth concurrence, and I would further guess that the fifth concurrence would be that of Justice Kennedy.

It can be said of Justice Antonin Scalia that he artfully crafted the majority opinion in DC v. Heller and secured the fact that the Second Amendment protects a right of the individual, and made it clear that this is just the beginning of the denouement.

There is no lock on "reasonable restrictions" in DC v. Heller

Every right ( and I admit I should've phrased it more accuratly ) is subject to regulation. For example - you right to gather for political rally doesn't prevent a city to require you obtain the permit for hold one.

Your example proves my point. The right to assemble is subject to some regulation in that the right is to peaceably assemble. Law can be written to ensure that, though law cannot be written to prohibit peaceable assembly. There is no provision, exception, or qualifier in the Second Amendment that would allow any regulation of the RKBA. The Second Amendment is different from all the other amendments in that it provides absolute protection of the right.

Same with "Carry". Word "Carry" seems to give you right to carry ( huh ), however it doesn't mean that CC HAS to be legal. It seems that as long as some form functional carry is allowed ( meaning carrying loaded gun ) in some manner ( open carry, for example ) all other modes of carry can be forbidden.

I can't even say, "Nice try," on this one. That line of illogic is old and easily refuted. You see, it isn't that as long as a certain amount of exercise of the right is allowed makes it OK for prohibitions to exist on other aspects of the right. It's that the right is not to be infringed by government. It isn't about what the government allows, it's about what the government is forbidden to infringe upon. Government can't "allow" something it hasn't the power to govern in the first place.

But I think that in this particular case you reading something in the Constitution that isn't there.

Vise Versa.

... Constitution says only what SCOTUS decides it says.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the Court has such power?

Anyway, don't say it can't be done. Alaska and Vermont already have uninfringed carry. It causes no problems. I can go either place and carry open or concealed without a license.

Woody

MT GUNNY
July 19, 2009, 09:12 PM
Lone Gunman Quote; Zero, no chance at all it will pass. It is a waste of time and money. Anti-gun people will not support it, and half the pro-gun people will not.

What ever you Think about the Bill, It prolly Will pass. 1. Since When has any Anti Gun Supporter Ever supported a Pro gun Bill? 2. our Elected Reps have Been Trained Buy Us To Vote For Pro gun Legislation. They Will see this as a Pro Gun Bill and Vote Accordingly, not Wanting to be Fired by there Constituents.

BettyFM
July 19, 2009, 10:32 PM
Does this bill or any reciprocity laws currently extent have any effect on the ability to purchase a handgun in a state in which I don't live? In other words, if I have a Texas permit can I purchase a handgun in Minnesota (for example), since Minnesota recognizes the Texas concealed permit?

RickTee
July 19, 2009, 10:37 PM
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government".....Thomas Jefferson. So why does Government want our guns? Isn't this just another means of getting at them, no matter how good it may seem?

RickTee
July 19, 2009, 10:39 PM
As I understand the reciprocity agreement the answer is yes; however local law prevails.

RickTee
July 19, 2009, 10:53 PM
HTH

<http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html>

Alaska has one restriction, see item one.

Vermont is a non-licensing state thus Vermonters do not have reciprocity in FL, yet any one can carry there.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 19, 2009, 11:09 PM
ANY infringement, no matter how beneficent it may appear, is an opening to any not-so-beneficent camel's nose.

Woody

mblat
July 20, 2009, 02:50 AM
What the Supreme Court really said in DC v. Heller:

In DC v. Heller. at 54, Scalia wrote:

Quote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
This excerpt contains "purpose" which the Second Amendment does not protect. It is also pertinent to note that it doesn't make much difference whether the right secured by the Second Amendment should be unlimited or not. The Founding Fathers secured the right as if it is unlimited. I, for one, believe it is unlimited as did the Founding Fathers. How else could We the People grant unlimited power to the Union to defend us if we didn't have that unlimited power ourselves?

Further along at 54 and 55, Scalia wrote:

Quote:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
(Note the footnote #26 which we'll get to in a minute.) Scalia did not say all the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are sacrosanct or are "reasonable restrictions". He wrote that they didn't do a complete analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment and could not say those "restrictions" were in doubt without a complete analysis. He left it wide open for a future analysis to make such a definitive call. All he said was that such a call wasn't made in this deliberation(DC v. Heller).

Now I'll address Footnote 26 in which Scalia wrote:

Quote:
26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
What can we glean from this? That his list of restrictions was incomplete? Yes, but more important is the inclusion of the phrase "presumptively lawful". The opinion of the Court is only PRESUMING these regulatory measures("reasonable restrictions") are constitutional. That's twice Scalia made that point. This is the Court passing the buck on to the next case to come along that would address the issue of the constitutionality of all of these presumptively - for the time being - lawful regulatory measures.

There is a reason the issue of these presumptively lawful regulatory measures was not addressed. My guess would be to secure a fifth concurrence, and I would further guess that the fifth concurrence would be that of Justice Kennedy.

It can be said of Justice Antonin Scalia that he artfully crafted the majority opinion in DC v. Heller and secured the fact that the Second Amendment protects a right of the individual, and made it clear that this is just the beginning of the denouement.

There is no lock on "reasonable restrictions" in DC v. Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
Every right ( and I admit I should've phrased it more accuratly ) is subject to regulation. For example - you right to gather for political rally doesn't prevent a city to require you obtain the permit for hold one.
Your example proves my point. The right to assemble is subject to some regulation in that the right is to peaceably assemble. Law can be written to ensure that, though law cannot be written to prohibit peaceable assembly. There is no provision, exception, or qualifier in the Second Amendment that would allow any regulation of the RKBA. The Second Amendment is different from all the other amendments in that it provides absolute protection of the right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
Same with "Carry". Word "Carry" seems to give you right to carry ( huh ), however it doesn't mean that CC HAS to be legal. It seems that as long as some form functional carry is allowed ( meaning carrying loaded gun ) in some manner ( open carry, for example ) all other modes of carry can be forbidden.
I can't even say, "Nice try," on this one. That line of illogic is old and easily refuted. You see, it isn't that as long as a certain amount of exercise of the right is allowed makes it OK for prohibitions to exist on other aspects of the right. It's that the right is not to be infringed by government. It isn't about what the government allows, it's about what the government is forbidden to infringe upon. Government can't "allow" something it hasn't the power to govern in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
But I think that in this particular case you reading something in the Constitution that isn't there.
Vise Versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
... Constitution says only what SCOTUS decides it says.
Where does it say in the Constitution that the Court has such power?

Anyway, don't say it can't be done. Alaska and Vermont already have uninfringed carry. It causes no problems. I can go either place and carry open or concealed without a license.

Woody

It is interesting how two people can read the same text and see what it said so differently. Scalia reffered in Heller that prohibitions to CC has survived constitutional challenges in the past. HE didn't mentioned that he disagrees with that. After Heller, It is open to argue that the right to carry either open or concealed (depending on local law) is entitled to constitutional protection. But while you can argue that you entitled to both - there is no indication what so ever that courts will be agreeable.
But we will have to agree to disagree on that.

Couple more points. With all due respect. I said "short of civil war Constitution says what SCOTUS decides." As any one-liner it is clear exaggeration, however from practical point of view it is absolutely correct. It isn't that difficult to imagine that SCOTUS rules 5-4 against Heller.
Congress wouldn't be talking about national CCW right now. They would be talking "on what date all AW have to be registered". And whatever my and your opinion on the subject is - we would either had to register it, become felons or start shooting at G-man. So, one more time: "Short of civil war Constitution says what SCOTUS decides."

Lastly. For each Vermont there is a New York and for each Alaska there is a California. There is NO WAY IN HELL Chicago will have shall issue policy without Feds making them to have it.

So..... whatever happy place you are living in..... seriously..... this is civil rights issue and history of this country proves that in many places civil right get respected only after Feds come at locals like ton of bricks. As far as that goes - nothing changes in the last fifty years.

ThrottleJockey72
July 20, 2009, 03:44 AM
From post#36
It actually is an incredibly simple bill. A good bill IMHO. One with no federal oversight or "standardization"

Yes and no. How will NY work? NY law requires the serial number of any gun you are carrying to be printed on the permit. Since no other state does this, no residents of any other state can abide by their law. And then there are states like MN that don't have "Concealed Carry Permits" per say, but rather have a "Permit to Carry a Pistol", or IN with their "personal protection permit". I know it is nit picking, but rest assured some states will try to play the word game. Then we have "may issue" states like HI, is it right to let me carry there, but only 2-3 actual residents are afforded the ability to do so? I agree it is a good, simple bill, however the wording does need to be adjusted a bit.

altitude_19
July 20, 2009, 10:22 AM
I support this bill. Thinking this will open a federal can of worms is a moot point when you consider the unlikelihood of full national reciprocity happening on it's own. You may as well ask a corporation to run without a head office. You worry about your gun rights being stepped on? IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING. Do you have any idea the research that has to be done before a road trip or military transfer as it is just so I don't get turned into a criminal the second I cross a state line? This is just enforcement of the "faith and credit" we should have had all along. Here's what I sent to my senators. Use it as a frame work for your own letters if you like. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR NOTES!!!! If you want to change something, do it, copy, paste, and send it off to your senator. If you don't like it at all, well, I don't really care. :evil:

Sir,
I’m far from being a legislative expert, so I hope you’ll excuse any incorrect terminology on my part. I am writing to request your support for the Thune-Vitter amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) establishing interstate reciprocity of permits to carry concealed handguns.
I am in the process of establishing my residence near Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, having just transferred here on orders with the United States Air Force. I have been on active duty for over six years and have relocated several times pursuant to my duties. That experience grants me unique perspective regarding the benefits of national concealed-carry reciprocity.
During this particular transfer, I was interested in obtaining my Nebraska permit to carry as soon as possible, as my South Dakota permit is not honored here. In recent years, I was responsible for producing documentation and evidence that resulted in the court-marshal, confinement, and discharge of a former co-worker. He has since relocated to Omaha (his hometown) and has been made aware of my moving here as well. I have concerns he may hold me responsible for his discharge from the Air Force and means to do me harm. A lack of concrete evidence to that effect, however, leaves me with little recourse in the way of a protection order.
Ordinarily, the obvious solution would be to lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense pending the manifestation of sufficient evidence to file for said protection order, but Nebraska state law requires 180 days of residency to qualify for a permit to carry. Additionally, there is the matter of the required training course (ranging upwards of $200 in cost) and the permit application fee ($100 [easily arguable as excessive]).
To quantify the burden the current state of affairs places on citizens in my position, please consider the following:
1.) I must make considerable effort in guarding my contact information and residence. I must vary my route to and from work. I have purchased a shredder for personal documents and will be ensuring my telephone number remains unlisted. I am forced to refrain from establishing a routine, such as going to the Laundromat or grocery store on certain days of the week. I must do these things in excess of 180 days. For 180 days, I must remain in a fearful and overtly vigilant state. ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DAYS of being defenseless.
2.) Including training and application costs, as well as fuel used to attend such appointments, I will have expended more then $300 acquiring a Nebraska state permit. Sir, I am sure you know that the military lifestyle carries enough burdens as it is. This needless expenditure to exercise a constitutional right from duty station to duty station is senseless and persecutory. THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS, just to continue exercising a constitutional right after having already picked up and relocated my entire life pursuant to my duty to my country.
It is simply unfair to ask me to do these things when I could just as easily go lawfully armed, if it weren’t for the draconian refusal to honor ALL states’ firearms permits. The constitution does not once mention automobile operator permits but, somehow, my operator permit is honored in EVERY state. Surely, there can be no good reason why the same due faith and credit cannot extend to lawfully bearing arms (a right that is mentioned quite prominently in the bill of rights).
I am enthusiastic to be establishing residence in your beautiful state. I have been warmly received and am settling in comfortably. I know you are concerned for the welfare of our military and will be eager to alleviate the difficulty of changing duty stations at any given opportunity. I salute and appreciate your support and am sure my comrades echo the sentiment. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. And thank you in advance for your support of the Thune-Vitter amendment.

Fetus
July 20, 2009, 10:40 AM
yeah i'm against it ... basically what will happen is some states ( like Massachusetts) that already don't like ccw will ban carry in their state so this law wont apply to them -- this is not a good thing .

Faitmaker
July 20, 2009, 01:08 PM
You won't like what I have to say because it typically goes against gun rights. Being an anti-federalist, I believe that none of the BoR rights should have been incorporated and the Supreme Court has agreed with that many times, concerning the 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd had not been incorporated, why were any of the others. Currently SCOTUS has incorporated all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials.

I believe Scotus has been wrong with incorporation and that the states have a right to legislate themselves through the power of the people, which is why I disagree with the National Reciprocity bill. It demands that a state recognize a CCW from other states even if the requirements to get it from the host state doesn't match those required in the traveled through state. If one state requires x,y,z, and k.. why would they want to honor a state that like Vermont has no requirements or NH where you can pay $10 to get your permit and have it by filling out an application? If that state WANTS to have tougher restrictions, that's up to them. (I don't agree with restrictions btw but that's another topic)

If the 14th amendment wasn't a BS attempt to get states under the federal government then 2A wouldn't need incorporated. Incorporation is judicial activism at it's finest. If the 14th amendment binds the states, it would do so for all 10 amendments and not just the one's the robes fancy.

For the record, I carry because my state allows me too. Why hasn't Chicago been overturned and most of Illinois when D.C. was overturned? Because D.C. is not in a state and follows FEDERAL laws. D.C. is a town that is MOST subjected by the Constitution. Heller should have blew Chicago out of the water. Instead, the NRA is NOW working on them but haven't proven successful.

I wish all states were to the level of freedom Vermont is (and Ohio isn't far from it in this regard) but that currently isn't the climate, which it would be if the BoR applied to the states. States should not be extorted by the Federal government to bend to it's will through sanctions. Would you want to live in a state where you voted for this and that only to see it done away with because your state was going to lose Federal dollars? Dollars that you paid to the Federal government through your taxes?

Think about what you are asking in the name of having nationwide reciprocity. You are about to open a lot of worms that the Founder's NEVER wanted.

State rights has always been a fundamental of this Country. I can see how easily it is to get you to turn over for what you want though and you'd throw another state under the bus to get it. You want rights recognized? Work within your state community. Leave the Federal government out of it. Sorry for the long post.

batjka
July 20, 2009, 01:47 PM
While I understand the arguments about the Feds getting into the States' Rights business, one must also recognize that they are already in it.

If we believe in States' Rights we should then argue that any State should be able to throw out any Federal regulation. Anything. Gun Control Act, Highway Safety Act, Environmental Protection Act. But the Sates can't, can they? They can only apply additional restrictions if the wish, but the minimum standard is established by the Fed. So how is this thing different?

If every Federal regulation had to be passes by every State in order to be valid in that State, I would agree with the nay-sayers. But it is not the case. So preserving what Rights are we talking about?

I'm really looking forward to being able to carry in NY with a Florida CCW license. I'm for this bill. When do they vote on it?

mblat
July 20, 2009, 01:57 PM
While I understand the arguments about the Feds getting into the States' Rights business, one must also recognize that they are already in it.

If we believe in States' Rights we should then argue that any State should be able to throw out any Federal regulation. Anything. Gun Control Act, Highway Safety Act, Environmental Protection Act. But the Sates can't, can they? They can only apply additional restrictions if the wish, but the minimum standard is established by the Fed. So how is this thing different?

If every Federal regulation had to be passes by every State in order to be valid in that State, I would agree with the nay-sayers. But it is not the case. So preserving what Rights are we talking about?

I'm really looking forward to being able to carry in NY with a Florida CCW license. I'm for this bill. When do they vote on it?

If I read it correctly it is even better than that. Feds here don't seem to establish ANY standards. They basically say - "if a State (A) allows CC, and a person is a resident with CC from any other State, then State (A) has to recognize it".

I don't see anything about "minimal requirements here".

green-grizzly
July 20, 2009, 02:59 PM
States recognize each other’s driving licenses. The feds require that states recognize driving licenses of other countries. This has not resulted in any kind of federal takeover of local traffic laws. And, unlike the RKBA, there is no right to drive specifically protected by the bill of rights.

I don't see this as a state's rights issue. Under the constitution, states are not supposed to treat the residents of other states differently (Article 4, Section 2). I can't even apply for a California CCW permit as I am a nonresident. States have no 'right' to discriminate against non residents. States are also supposed to honor the acts of other states, and Congress has the power to determine how that is done (Article 4, Section 1).

This is not to mention that these states are denying people their right to bear arms, a right that may be enforced by Congress under the 14th amendment.

States lost the power to discriminate against nonresidents in 1789, and the power to deny people their fundamental rights in 1868. The states have no right to do that which is forbidden by the Constitution.

When I travel in my own country I want to be able to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate that some members of Congress are trying to make this happen.

AZCOWBOY
July 20, 2009, 03:51 PM
National Park Carry not set to happen until FEB 2010, Congress could change something before then to stop or limit this carry. This current National Carry will pass no doubt now then in the future the feds will change it making it more restrictive for states like MT ID WY UT SD ND etc to be more like the Eastern Block Commie States and the Commie Left West Coast or just prohibit conceal carry all together by the feds like he says he can give and he can take away, remember changing speed limits, remember seat belt laws - the feds just threaten to not to give the states fed funds for highways until they changed their state laws of course of the states governors, attorney generals, legislator bowed down to the feds and changed the state laws. Both of these Bills were attached to something or another to pass - it's all a big game and part of the big plan.

Another part of the plan the Governor's Association just told the feds they do not need another stimulus package now, but they did not say they would not need one later.

Another part of the plan was that 33 State Attorneys supported the NRA in the SCOTUS case, all fluff, all show, all as some of you say "eye candy". Just like National Park Carry and National Carry is just "eye candy'.

Another part of the plan, yes the so-called National Health will be passed.

So what do the democrat and spineless republicans get out of these two bills of National Carry and National Park Carry ? SOTOMAYOR in the SCOTUS, then these democrat and spineless republicans have a majority on the SCOTUS, then anytime on the future from SEP 2009 & on they can drop the Carry Nationwide and in the Parks (the vote for SOTOMAYOR is in AUG 2009).

Also remember, Congress can pass it, but the President can Veto it. So Congress passes it then SOTOMAYOR is approved by Congress then President just veto's it or let's it become law to later modified or stop the law ---- guess how - the SCOTUS with SOTOMAYOR on it declares National Park and National Carry UN-constitutional.

then the Gun Carry People have nothing and democrats / spineless republicans have a majority on the SCOTUS which is why ? they are all (democrats / spineless republicans) worried about the latino/mexican/brown (these are the words SOTOMAYOR uses Capt Crunch) votes in the elections of 2010 and 2012

Think about Now who is in Power and who Controls the Admin Branch and Congress plus will soon control SCOTUS, figured the answer out yet ? So why would they give us National Park and Nation Carry ? as above it is all a big game and part of the big plan.

From the letters received back from Senators in even WY ID MT in the last few days by several of us, SOTOMAYOR will be approved for the SCOTUS, it is cut and dry.

NRA, SAF, GOA - will shortly look like hero's "to you" for the National Park and Nation Carry laws, but this will go away in the near. Plus they get to keep fighting supposedly for us - their job security.

As far as I am concerned State's Rights are being lost and the feds are becoming more powerful - which as our Founder's would tell us is not a good thing.

So supporters of this, you will go quietly into the night like sheep lead by the Judas Goats that speak with a Forked Tongue of a Snake. Many on here say they support the 2A but then they themselves want restrictions on the 2A. Just like the feds lied to the Indians in the past.

ThrottleJockey72
July 20, 2009, 06:42 PM
As far as I am concerned State's Rights are being lost and the feds are becoming more powerful
States lost their rights in the War of Northern Aggression my friend. And they lost their National Guard early this year.

Faitmaker
July 21, 2009, 11:21 AM
States recognize each other’s driving licenses. The feds require that states recognize driving licenses of other countries. This has not resulted in any kind of federal takeover of local traffic laws. And, unlike the RKBA, there is no right to drive specifically protected by the bill of rights.

What was the Federal speed limit until 1995 when they returned power to the states to decide for themselves?

I don't see this as a state's rights issue. Under the constitution, states are not supposed to treat the residents of other states differently (Article 4, Section 2). I can't even apply for a California CCW permit as I am a nonresident. States have no 'right' to discriminate against non residents. States are also supposed to honor the acts of other states, and Congress has the power to determine how that is done (Article 4, Section 1).

States don't have rights. They have powers. And the Article doesn't say that exactly. Residents are entitled to state benefits. Try to collect welfare from another state and see how far you get. There are reasonable exclusions. You have the right to buy property in another state. You have the right not to be taxed more in another state than it's residents. You have the right to move freely across state lines, etc.

This is not to mention that these states are denying people their right to bear arms, a right that may be enforced by Congress under the 14th amendment.

States lost the power to discriminate against nonresidents in 1789, and the power to deny people their fundamental rights in 1868. The states have no right to do that which is forbidden by the Constitution.


Well, I disagree with that but /shrug. If the 14th amendment binds the states, it should do so for all the amendments. Not those selected by men in robes.

When I travel in my own country I want to be able to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate that some members of Congress are trying to make this happen.

Want and legal is two different things. I want the constitution to remain the law in the land but because of what others "want" we have the Patriot Act and I lost a right to privacy.

green-grizzly
July 21, 2009, 11:44 AM
Faitmaker:
What was the Federal speed limit until 1995 when they returned power to the states to decide for themselves?
That was done under the power of the purse; states were denied highway funds if they didn't conform. The states were still free to ignore the federal law. It didn't have anything to do with driver's license reciprocity.
States don't have rights. They have powers. And the Article doesn't say that exactly. Residents are entitled to state benefits. Try to collect welfare from another state and see how far you get. There are reasonable exclusions. You have the right to buy property in another state. You have the right not to be taxed more in another state than it's residents. You have the right to move freely across state lines, etc.
I agree about rights being for people and powers for states. That seems to be the venacular people use though, and have long used. Anyway, the constitution does protect the fundamental rights of people from other states. Maybe not welfare and hunting rights, but people visiting other states do get free speech, jury trials, etc. Are you saying the RKBA is not fundamental?
Well, I disagree with that but /shrug. If the 14th amendment binds the states, it should do so for all the amendments. Not those selected by men in robes.
The first 8 amendments should be applied to the states in toto, as well as habeas corpus, jury trials, etc. It would make my heart sing if every speeding ticket had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury.
Want and legal is two different things. I want the constitution to remain the law in the land but because of what others "want" we have the Patriot Act and I lost a right to privacy.
Want and legal are two different things, and I think my being able to bear arms in California is both. I am glad the Congress is finally going to enforce that, and I don't think Congress possibly screwing up with the PATRIOT act is an excuse for them not to do so.

AZCOWBOY
July 21, 2009, 04:01 PM
NRA ILA, GOA, and SAF you have done some good
things over the years, but many times you have lost your
way and again you have lost your way !
Take the TROJAN HORSE BILL you are pushing on
National Right to Carry and shove it along with
you reforming ATF and Firearms Modernization.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5063
National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Amendment

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4951
and others like reforming the ATF and Firearms Modernization

If you want to do something worth doing for the USA, Constitution,
Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, and the PEOPLE, then REPEAL
not add more laws to the patchwork quilt we have now, repeal the
1968 Gun Control Act, the 1930's restrictions on Machine Guns and
Silencers all of which the NRA directly supported, in fact repeal every
gun and knife (ARMS) laws on the books at every level of government
except the Second Amendment.

We know you need something to do to justify your jobs and salary for
you and your families ! No problem with that, just do what you should
- REPEAL not to build houses of mirrors and smoke screens ! and quit
cutting deals on the side like you did on this one - Congress give us
National Carry then we will give you SOTOMAYOR and the ATF
reforms the GOVT wants.

Faitmaker
July 21, 2009, 04:06 PM
That was done under the power of the purse; states were denied highway funds if they didn't conform. The states were still free to ignore the federal law. It didn't have anything to do with driver's license reciprocity.


Or we can call it extortion. Or going around the system to get what you want. Generally what all of Congress and the SCOTUS understand.

I agree about rights being for people and powers for states. That seems to be the venacular people use though, and have long used.

I have to admit. I was jerking the chain on that one. I use State rights as well but understand that the Constitution doesn't give states rights. It gives them the power of the people.

Anyway, the constitution does protect the fundamental rights of people from other states. Maybe not welfare and hunting rights, but people visiting other states do get free speech, jury trials, etc. Are you saying the RKBA is not fundamental?


Well again, you are talking to someone who believes that the Constitution is about the Federal government and that the 14th amendment was misused. I would say it doesn't protect your freedom of speech in regards to states and private persons. However, since the SCOTUS saw fit to incorporate that, non-residents would have the same right to free speech as you do through the 14th amendment. Let us say for sake of argument that the 14th gives you the same right as citizens in another state, at the very most you are going to get out of that is the state has to give you the right to go through whatever they see fit on their resident regulations, ie, you can get a Mass. permit by going through Mass's procedures for their citizens.

The first 8 amendments should be applied to the states in toto, as well as habeas corpus, jury trials, etc. It would make my heart sing if every speeding ticket had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury.


Goes back to state sovereignty. I'd rather my state decide what is good for my state. Once the Feds decide that they can do "this" than that gives them an inroad to doing "that" and suddenly it's ok with every one because they slowly chipped away and we are all now boiling frogs (love that analogy).

Want and legal are two different things, and I think my being able to bear arms in California is both. I am glad the Congress is finally going to enforce that, and I don't think Congress possibly screwing up with the PATRIOT act is an excuse for them not to do so.

I have no doubt that you are glad that you might be getting this but that doesn't make it Consititutional. "Finally going to enforce"? There has to be something TO enforce before they can finally do it. Is this your statement? "I am glad that the Congress of the United States is going to force other states to bend to my desires"? Maybe we can get the UN to tell other countries to allow us to carry as we travel the globe and then we would really be in paradise...

Congress did screw up with the PATRIOT act and this would be the same thing. Congress using power they do not have. Once you open that door, you will never close it. I would prefer to get reciprocity worked out amongst the states. The way we are going, everyone will be on board sooner or later. This is a ball that is just going to get bigger the more "normal" firearms get. And we can do it without the Feds getting their foot in the door.

Just be careful what power you are willing to give them. They have already proven that they can't handle the power already given. Why give them more? Once they have it, you will never take it away from them.

Has anyone noticed that this is the first time Conservatives have screamed that incorporation is good and the Liberals have said "no it's not". We live in interesting times. That's for sure.

green-grizzly
July 21, 2009, 06:17 PM
Faitmaker:

I'm sure you recognize that the consensus is that the 14th amendment was intended to 'incorporate' the amendments, and that the old Supreme Court precedents holding otherwise (Slaughterhouse, etc.) are dead wrong. I'm not saying that there is no evidence to the contrary or that there may be a constititional scholar or two that agrees with you, but it is against the weight of the evidence. We can argue about whether that is good policy, but it seems pretty clear that this was the intent of the 14th amendment.

I don't have confidence that we will get reciprocity among all of the states. It will never happen in NY, CA, etc. Heck, even NV is stepping back. We fought a big war, and passed a constitutional amendment so that the states can't deny the right to bear arms (as well as the other 7 original amendments). The language is not perfectly clear, but almost everybody that has studied it thinks that was the intent. Maybe you disagree, and maybe the Supreme Court will too. But IMHO if you want to change the constitution back to the way it was before the Civil War, you and others others who have similar policy goals should work to amend the constitution and repeal the 14th amendment instead of just ignoring what it says.

I like "state rights" and federalism too, and would love to see the courts put some teeth in their commerce clause jurisprudence. It would be even better if Congress would respect the constitution on its own, but I won't hold my breath. The expanded commerce clause is the real enemy of federalism. Unlike the 14th amendment with the bill of rights, there was never any constitutional amendment to expand the commerce clause.

I can see possibly objecting to something like that law Congress passed a few years ago protecting gun makers from state lawsuits; that was a really questionable application of congressional power under the commerce clause. But this bill we are talking about now is being done in accordance with a constitutional amendment passed 141 years ago. Congress and the courts are not ignoring the constitution, they are implementing it.

Anyway, cheers. We will see how Senator Thune's amendment plays out. Both of my Senators are on board (one of whom is running scared for reelection, so he is very pro RKBA this year).

ArmedBear
July 21, 2009, 07:04 PM
We fought a big war, and passed a constitutional amendment so that the states can't deny the right to bear arms (as well as the other 7 original amendments). The language is not perfectly clear, but almost everybody that has studied it thinks that was the intent.

I honestly don't think that many people who aren't still sore about losing said war and having their ancestors forced to free their slaves are particularly interested in arguments against applying the 14th Amendment, the intent of which is quite clear.

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.

Seems PRETTY DAMNED SIMPLE to me.

I don't think there's any point in trying to debate this stuff with someone who isn't interested in a real debate. There's little point in debating it, at all.

That's not an ad hominem. It's an observation.

gringolet
July 21, 2009, 07:13 PM
if this is limited to states with CCW laws it is a bit of a non-starter.
my home state has reciprocity with some 28 other states now. or more
(have not checked lately)...in fact, my wife and I ride motorcycles a
bit and pretty much every state I'd be interested in visiting is now honoring
our state CCW as we are theirs. This is an issue the CCW states can resolve
themselves. If the Act will permit carry interstate in the NON-CCW states then it is worthwhile and will help resolve a problem, but you can bet it will open a can of worms
on the question of what restrictions those states may impose such as requiring the
weapon be in a locked compartment in their state boundaries.

ArmedBear
July 21, 2009, 07:14 PM
if this is limited to states with CCW laws it is a bit of a non-starter.

No, it is NOT.

That's what people don't get.

California, for example, has CCW. It just doesn't actually issue the permits to anyone but the rich, famous, or politically connected.

This means that there would probably be a lot of pressure on California to go from "may issue" to "shall issue", since California won't go to "no issue." Politicians are not going to tell their Hollywood donors that they can't have their guns with them.

It would also force states like Oregon to accept neighboring states' permits. Currently, this is a problem since some highways go in and out of Oregon -- but Oregon seldom issues out-of-state permits, and has no reciprocity.

mgkdrgn
July 21, 2009, 10:40 PM
If this passes would California, Washington DC, and so on, have to accept my MT, CCP? Just like my Drivers license.
In a Sence It would Force Anti States to have CC Laws!

Don't hold your breath. This thing has about as much chance of passing as having flaming monkeys fly out my a**

ThrottleJockey72
July 21, 2009, 11:58 PM
Don't hold your breath. This thing has about as much chance of passing as having flaming monkeys fly out my a**
Well you'd better get some preparation H and some ice, and put on some slow music, because on Wednesday July 22, 2009 at high noon, Senate is voting on the amendment to the defense bill otherwise known as S 1618 (http://www.ooida.com/Issues&Actions/documents/misc/senate1618.pdf). And it has more than enough support to pass.

AZCOWBOY
July 22, 2009, 04:43 AM
To: Senator --------, Senator --------, and Representative ----------of the State of -----------:

Do not support or vote for the Thune-Vitter Amendment to S. 1390 . I realize this is supported by the NRA, GOA, and SAF, but this time they are wrong in this pushing issue, and I have e-mailed and called all three organizations the same. We do not need the Fed's mettling in State of -------- business, we have enough of it already.

Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. John Wayne

Besides it being UN-Constitutional, this is exactly why the Thune-Vitter Amendment to S. 1390 will not work. States like NJ, NY, MD, CT, MA, IL, etc would not let it work and could care less what Congress or the other Fed's say. First time anyone like from AZ or ID or MT or WY when to NJ to carry CWP, they would most likely be harassed or thrown in jail.

Conceal Carry / Open Carry is a State's Right's Issue and it always has been that away. Fed's have no say in the matter. Driver's License has nothing to do with it but even if it did Driver" Licenses issues all handled under State agreements not some Fed law or regulation.

It is UN-Constitutional for Congress to pass Thune-Vitter Amendment to S. 1390 and for the President to sign. It would be a definite violation of Oath of Office for the Congress to pass and for the President to sign. Threat of passage of this amendment is a clear and present danger to The Constitution of the United States of America. As per their Oath of Office, Congress "swore to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic". Now it is up to Congress to do their duty and uphold the Constitution as they swore they would do.

The only law related to "ARMS" (firearms, knives, and tomahawks, etc) that is needed and warranted is the Second Amendment - Bill of Rights of The Constitution of United States of America. All other such laws or agency rules should be abolished immediately. This patchwork of Fed, State, County, and City laws across our Great Nation were created to control the people not the arms: based on racism, sexism, relgion, etc.; the elitism thinking of many at all levels across this Nation akin to this Governor of New Jersey; those who lust for power, greed, and other worldly possesions; and fear of trival in nature like switchblades being made illegal in the 1950's due to a movie named West Side Story about gangs, some government employee worried about game poaching the 1930's during the depression started the control of silencers, some government employee worried about machine guns in the 1930's because some gangs used them, and the list goes on and on - do you see the pattern here ? Just like this New Jersey Governor, many or is it maybe most in government power fear the people or distrust the people ? Therefore want to control the people by making laws against keeping and bearing ARMS by the people. Those in government power certainly are not trying to protect the people, since they are disarming and restricting the people who obey the laws, whereas all the Criminals do not give a tinker's dam about the laws Congress passes or Congress itself, therefore the laws are of zero value other than giving some people (lawyers (akin to rattlesnakes), judges, jailers, and Peace Officers) a job at whatever level in government. There is no disputing the fact, the more Citizens are ARMED then the lower the crime rate and vice versus, i.e.compare the crime rate of Arizone or Wyoming or Idaho or Montana versus New Jersey.

Bring back and use the Death Penalty (Hanging or Shot - no drugs and no gas (I am sensitive to environmental concerns) on a regular basis for "first time offense" of murder, rape, any kind of robbery, car theft (just like horse theft use to be),and drug dealers - no deals, short appeal time, very quick trial then death. The crime rates will fall to an every low rate, in a matter of weeks if not days. All lawyers, judges, jailers, and Peace Officers put out of work due to the low crime rate and hardly no one in jail, will be given a job on the South or North Border to assist in "sealing" the "no man's land zone or dead man zone" the entire length of borders.

My Great Grand Father, My Grand Father, and My Father all said the same thing, "always remember, if the Federal Government ran the Sahara Desert there would be a shortage of sand".

"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." This quote has also been attributed to David Crockett and is consistent with his very-limited-government philosophy. In opinion he is the best Congressman there ever has been. Research the internet for yourself.
We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.—Albert Einstein

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. Thomas Jefferson

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Wayne


Thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaPA8fGeRUc&feature=related
3 minutes 46 seconds - more than worth every second - lifetime of learning

Col. David Crockett (The Alamo):
"Republic. I like the sound of the word."

///// SIGNED /////////



http://blog.nj.com/njv_scott_bach/2009/07/corzine_to_millions_of_honest.html
Corzine to Millions of Honest Gun Owners: You're Potential Criminals and a Threat to Public Safety
Posted by Scott L. Bach, Esq. July 21, 2009 5:56PM

Memo to the millions of American citizens who have managed to qualify for government permits to carry firearms: you are "potential criminals," and you are "a threat to our citizens' safety and well-being," even though you have passed criminal background checks and satisfied state firearms proficiency standards. That according to New Jersey governor Jon Corzine (D), who apparently thinks that the path to re-election later this year is paved by trampling the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Governor Corzine and other far-left New Jersey politicians are beside themselves over an imminent floor vote in the U.S. Senate on the Thune-Vitter Amendment to S. 1390 which would require states like New Jersey, which refuse to recognize the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, to honor Right-to-Carry permits issued by other states, much in the way driver's licenses are honored throughout the country.

Calling the legislation "an egregious threat to communities across the country," a press release issued by Governor Corzine makes the revealing statement that more guns, "especially in the hands of potential criminals, do not make us safer." The statement exposes the Governor's fundamentally misguided view that anyone who chooses to exercise the Constitutional right to bear arms for personal protection, even with government sanction, is a potential criminal from whom the public needs to be protected.

"We will never compromise, not even one inch, where public safety is concerned," concludes the Governor's press release, revealing Corzine's lack of even a basic understanding of the right of self defense and the part that Right-to-Carry plays within it.

In an era where vicious criminal predators prey upon the weak and vulnerable, the U.S. Supreme Court has surprisingly held that police owe no duty to protect individual citizens and cannot be held accountable when they fail to do so. This means that from the time you dial 911 until the police arrive, you're on your own. Right-to-Carry helps level the playing field in the gravest extreme, and offers victims a fighting chance while they wait for help to arrive.

Approximately 40 states comprehend this simple truth and recognize the Right-to-Carry. Wherever Right-to-Carry laws have passed, there has been a corresponding and sustained drop in violent crime rates, for one simple reason: criminals go somewhere else when they think their victims may be armed. When the predators can't tell the difference between the lions and the sheep, the whole flock is safer. Right-to-Carry thus benefits not only the law-abiding citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights, but also those around them who don't.

Think about it: every mass killing in recent memory has had one thing in common: the victims were unarmed and unable to defend themselves against violent and brutal surprise attacks by predators. Right-to-Carry helps even out the odds, and criminals know it. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed.

The Thune-Vitter Amendment expands Right-to-Carry and will enhance public safety, contrary to Governor Corzine's ill-advised view. It recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines.

New Jersey's policies on gun rights are as backwards as its policies on taxes. It's time for elected officials who swore to uphold the Constitution to stop trampling on our protected gun rights.

Willo
July 22, 2009, 05:50 AM
as a Californian, there will be more people from out of state able to carry in California than there will be Californians able to carry *in their own state*! That's crazy.

There will be a HUGE, and I mean HUGE run on Florida/Utah out-of-state permits from Californians in the weeks after this passes, IF it passes.

And if it passes I will be utterly shocked. :what: :eek: :confused:

Faitmaker
July 22, 2009, 07:53 AM
I'm sure you recognize that the consensus is that the 14th amendment was intended to 'incorporate' the amendments, and that the old Supreme Court precedents holding otherwise (Slaughterhouse, etc.) are dead wrong. I'm not saying that there is no evidence to the contrary or that there may be a constititional scholar or two that agrees with you, but it is against the weight of the evidence.

I would say that the consensus is not that at all! If that were so, all the amendments would already be incorporated. Instead, you only have the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, MOST of the Fifth Amendment, and some of the Seventh. Can you post SCOTUS evidence that shows that all the old precedents are now wrong? Don't bother with Heller because DC follows Federal law. It is absolutely governed by the 2nd Amendment. All we got with that decision was the SCOTUS finally saying we have a natural right to self-defense and that the 2nd speaks to the people's right and not the other BS anti's talk about.

We can argue about whether that is good policy, but it seems pretty clear that this was the intent of the 14th amendment.

I have to disagree. You have given an assertion but provided no argument.

We fought a big war, and passed a constitutional amendment so that the states can't deny the right to bear arms (as well as the other 7 original amendments).

The 14th was passed to make sure the States followed the 13th so that African-Americans were considered citizens.

The language is not perfectly clear, but almost everybody that has studied it thinks that was the intent. Maybe you disagree, and maybe the Supreme Court will too. But IMHO if you want to change the constitution back to the way it was before the Civil War, you and others others who have similar policy goals should work to amend the constitution and repeal the 14th amendment instead of just ignoring what it says.


WHOA. I don't want to change anything and I'm not ignoring ANYTHING the 14th says. I'm ignoring the fact that SCOTUS has applied what it says to *SOME* of the Amendments and not all. Either Due Process applies to all the Amendments or none of them. Incorporation is an interpretation of the Constitution and I don't see why the robes have any more power to interpret than you or I. Please show me in the Constitution an amendment that makes all the amendments apply to the States.

I like "state rights" and federalism too, and would love to see the courts put some teeth in their commerce clause jurisprudence.

The concept of state rights and federalism contradicts each other. I don't think you understand what Federalism is.

It would be even better if Congress would respect the constitution on its own, but I won't hold my breath. The expanded commerce clause is the real enemy of federalism.

Federalism wants everything to flow through a central government. I think you mean anti-federalism.

Unlike the 14th amendment with the bill of rights, there was never any constitutional amendment to expand the commerce clause.

Again, the 14th Amendment doesn't even speak about the Bill of Rights. It's main intent was to bind the States to the 13th by saying that all people had equal protection of law. It was years later that SCOTUS decided that the Due Process clause could be used to incorporate certain amendments to the States. Interpretation.

I can see possibly objecting to something like that law Congress passed a few years ago protecting gun makers from state lawsuits; that was a really questionable application of congressional power under the commerce clause. But this bill we are talking about now is being done in accordance with a constitutional amendment passed 141 years ago. Congress and the courts are not ignoring the constitution, they are implementing it.


Again, I disagree but you are entitled to your opinion.

Anyway, cheers. We will see how Senator Thune's amendment plays out. Both of my Senators are on board (one of whom is running scared for reelection, so he is very pro RKBA this year).

I believe Ohio is on board too. However, just because I disagree with you here doesn't mean I am against the RKBA. I just disagree how it is trying to be applied to the States. I disagree with incorporation especially with it being applied selectively. Cheers to you to mate.

ThrottleJockey72
July 22, 2009, 08:36 AM
as a Californian, there will be more people from out of state able to carry in California than there will be Californians able to carry *in their own state*! That's crazy.

There will be a HUGE, and I mean HUGE run on Florida/Utah out-of-state permits from Californians in the weeks after this passes, IF it passes.

And if it passes I will be utterly shocked.
You really aren't paying attention are you? In order for the reciprocity amendment to apply to you, your permit MUST BE ISSUED BY THE STATE IN WHICH YOU RESIDE! It appears you haven't even taken the 30 seconds to read the bill or the other 30 seconds to read the proposed amendment, so why on earth would you comment and look ridiculous in doing so? When passed, this action will essentially render non-resident permits obsolete and useless.

green-grizzly
July 22, 2009, 11:29 AM
Faitmaker:

I appreciate your condescension when you say that I don't understand federalism.

I think federalism is the concept that there are sovereign states and a sovereign federal government, each with their own sets of powers that are pretty mutually exclusive. Thus, there are certain things that are within the state's power and other things that are within the federal government's power. The federal powers are clearly laid out in the constitution, and by default everything else is a state power (or a right reserved to the people). So I don't see "state's rights" and federalism being incompatible. States have a "right" to do certain things, as does the federal government. This comports with the dictionary definition ("A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units."). The definition you give of federalism is entirely incompatible with common English usage. That kind of makes argument pointless.

"Anti-federalist" is an old term for somebody who opposes the ratification of the US constitution. They didn't want this system of divided power. They lost.

As to the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment, I will not make an argument that has been made many times before. See this brief if you are interested in the consensus view: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cac_cert_stage.pdf. You seem very sure that you are right and that everybody agrees with you, but that is not the case (although I of course agree that the wrongly decided Slaughterhouse cases agree with your point, although they have been largely mooted by incorporation through the due process clause). Most constitutional scholars agree that the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause has been wrongly interpreted by the courts. The fellows who prepared that brief are the most respected guys in the field, and the two or three other big shots agree with them. The 14th was intended to apply the first 8 amendments to the states. You can of course continue to believe otherwise, and I am not saying your argument is totally groundless, but I think you are wrong to claim that is the consensus.

You act as if the Supreme Court precedent holding that the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment is worthless is conclusive on that point, but then seem to complain that the Supreme Court precedent incorporating the most of the Bill of Rights through the due process clause of the 14th amendment (soon to include the second amendment) is horribly wrong. Which is it? Is the Supreme Court always wrong or always right? It is of course neither, and lawyers, scholars, and even us lowly citizens can read the documents and discover their meaning if we are honest about the use of language.

green-grizzly
July 22, 2009, 11:34 AM
Willo:

Sadly, I don't think Californians will be able to get Utah permits to avoid California law.

a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;
This law does not apply if you are in your own state. :( It would allow New Yorkers to get Utah permits for when they go to California though. That is odd.

pbearperry
July 22, 2009, 11:46 AM
Will someone tell me why this bill would not work,because the Fed Cop Carry Bill seems to be working pretty much?

Nuke8401
July 22, 2009, 12:04 PM
I hear the vote is at noon today.

I am definitely not a “lawyer dude” like some here but I can't see the difference between this and driver’s license and I am for anything that loosens gun regulations.

Superpsy
July 22, 2009, 12:39 PM
If you want to watch it's being debated now...

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2_wm.aspx

Igloodude
July 22, 2009, 12:40 PM
I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I do see the fed vs state negative implications of it, but on the other hand, federal overreach has been screwing us so long that it'd be nice for it to go in our favor for once. And setting aside constitutional ideology, it'd mean that I'm able to actually drive outside of New England and remain legally armed - currently I would be a felon at the NYS border, and indeed on my daily commute into Massachusetts absent a Mass out-of-state CCW (renewed annually for $100, unlike my NH one renewed every four years for $10).

All that said, I'd be very surprised to see it actually pass - Schumer and the other anti-gun senators have promised a filibuster and the Reps and Blue Dog Dems might muster a majority, but I strongly doubt they have 60 votes (and it has to survive Pelosi's House, too).

Wa shooter
July 22, 2009, 01:30 PM
Failed by two votes 58 - 39.

The_Shootist
July 22, 2009, 01:33 PM
Still pretty close - and yeah, close counts in handgrenades and horseshoes, but close enough to try again soon.

Be interested to see a roll call vote on this.

DeepSouth
July 22, 2009, 01:35 PM
Closer than I thought it would be.

Vermont Guy
July 22, 2009, 01:44 PM
For

As of post 125 and this one I make the count 21 for, 21 against and 21 not sure.

AZCOWBOY
July 22, 2009, 01:46 PM
Good it failed. Hopefully dead forever. State's Rights.

Fix your own State rules or move to another State. What would the reaction be if say all gun owners in New Jersey Mass, Maryland, CT, CA, DE, and New York move to a semi-free gun State in a 30 day period of time. Do you think that might raise an eye brow or two ?

Note: if this does re-surface and passes it will include restrictions on the 2A that exceed what is required in the semi-free states like ID WY MT, I still believe this is all part of a big people (gun) control plan.

Yosemite Sam
July 22, 2009, 01:57 PM
Defeat in U.S. Senate for Gun Lobby Legislation on Carrying Concealed Weapons

http://i31.tinypic.com/207rpft.jpg

Dangerous legislation that would have forced states to allow dangerous individuals to carry loaded guns in public was defeated in the U.S. Senate.

This outrageous legislation was introduced as the Thune Amendment (No. 1618) to the Defense Authorization bill (S. 1390).

It would have allowed the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms outside a person's home state, even by persons legally barred from possessing guns in the state where the carrying occurs. It would have allowed the weaker concealed carry laws of one state to nullify the restrictions on gun carrying of other states.

We applaud those Senators who stood firm for the public's safety and rejected the gun lobby's dangerous legislation.

Source: www DOT Brady Campaign DOT org (type it in yourself so it doesn't trace back to THR)






What the hell kind of journalism is this? :banghead:

Ooooo, those dangerous individuals! Those loaded guns! The big bad boogie man is out to get ya! :D

Wa shooter
July 22, 2009, 02:00 PM
I also had states rights issues with this bill but I just got back from a trip through 5 different states and it took some research to figure out if and how to carry / transport in each state. The whole permit requirement is silly.

kd7nqb
July 22, 2009, 02:09 PM
It kinda bugs me that it only failed by 2 votes, 2 votes is close enough that a few thousand more calls/ emails/ letters would have changed the outcome.

hvengel
July 22, 2009, 02:25 PM
I don't think any one expected this to pass but it did get the pols on record as being either pro or anti and this could prove useful in the next election. I think that this was the main motivation for getting this bill to the floor for a vote. I am certain the Harry Reid (D Nev.) almost for sure wanted to be able to say he voted for this since it will help him retain his seat in the upcoming election.

CoRoMo
July 22, 2009, 02:41 PM
I actually thought it would pass.

Though, I have to admit that I'm in the camp that is please to see the federal government prevented from dabbling with the 2A. I believe that it should never have dabbled with it to begin with.

MT GUNNY
July 22, 2009, 02:44 PM
Well, we should Focus on getting our states to allow Recip... with More states. we are on the down hill side, keep pressing you state Reps to add more states.

GeorgeF
July 22, 2009, 02:47 PM
Reason it came so close is that the Dems knew ahead of time what the count would be. Those Dems in sensitive states would be allowed to vote for it and be seen as 'pro-gun'. There were enough hard core Dems that voted 'No' (Kerry, Feinstein, etc...) that the other Dems could vote along with the bill.

That turncoat Specter voted 'No' where a good many times he has been pro-gun rights. Thanks for nothing.

cbrgator
July 22, 2009, 02:52 PM
Where can we find who voted what way?

neverjeg
July 22, 2009, 02:58 PM
The State of Oklahoma hereby recognizes any valid concealed carry
weapons permit or license issued by another state.

You're welcome here.

Art Eatman
July 22, 2009, 03:08 PM
Let's have post-mortem discussions in a new thread...

If you enjoyed reading about "The “Reciprocal Conceal Carry” Act. S. 845" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!