National CCW for those supporting states right

Status
Not open for further replies.
6

627PCFan

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
2,169
Location
Seacoast NH
National CCW Reciprocity has been tossed around for quite some time and I have noticed that there is a large audience of us that believe that states right should regulate reciprocity. I was originally supportive of that theory however over the course of time I swayed away after reading account of account of gun unfriendly states pursuing cases that were accidentally violated by out of staters. NJ, NY, Maryland and on and on. I think by the very virtue of joining the high road everyone here shares a common interest and an interest in being responsible gun owners, to include knowing local and laws in states traveled. Honest mistakes happen despite the best intentions. Last year an event happened to me that made me abandon my any remaining belief that States rights should rule in regards to Reciprocity. Without going into details I was stopped for minor traffic infraction that did not occur, was without merit and due to the questions asked it was quickly apparent that the Officer had more info available than he should have and had an agenda. I was let go with a warning. After having a year to think about it and research what information and sources this officer had available to him I have come to the calculated conclusion that some states police departments do have other states CCW/Permit information despite public statements (to include my CCW state) to the contrary and they are using electronic tools to ID and target certain folks. That event has shaped my thinking that certain states can no longer be trusted and they are manipulating their "states rights" to actively target people using very specific data. Not many of us here trust the Nj's, Marylands or NY's of the US these days because they are so anti. I'm not against the enforcement of local laws but I am against the manipulation that I have experienced. The National CCW legislation has painted a target on those states backs. For those of us who have been unjustly targeted, I for one am very happy to see them be the target for a change.
 
Under a Federal Gun Program who would check you out? Would you be held until an FBI BGC could be preformed? Do you believe getting a CCW from the Federal government would be easier than through your state? Just think instead of 50 different governments it would take only one Liberal Democrat to end the rights in all 50 states.:thumbdown:
 
I'm normally all for States rights, but in this particular issue I personally view it differently because the issue relates directly to a Constitutional right, rather than an entitlement. Imagine if States like NJ, MD, IL, CA, or NY did the same thing with free speech that they have with gun control, and how the reaction from many people of all ideologies (including many in the gun control crowd) would rightfully point out that States are not supposed to be able to levy heavy censorship on their civilians. IMO, until every State becomes 'shall issue' and 'shall provide reciprocity', this other form of heavy censorship will remain.

And I agree with you that States cannot be (and should not be) trusted or blindly relied upon. If they could, we wouldn't need the 2A. Times may have changed but that reality certainly hasn't!
 
A Constitutional Right is not an Entitlement. The Bill Of Rights was added to the Body Constitution to protect individual Rights from the Federal over reach. This allows the people and their various states to approve freedoms not necessarily condoned by the Fed. I would not want to trade this for the right to carry in New York City.:uhoh:
 
The problem is .gov keeps obfuscating the issue with an incorrect definition of "the People." They seem to ignore the "Bear arms" part also. Bear means to carry, and if they gave in on "the People", they'd have to concede that "bear" means carry. The 2nd was meant to establish the right to carry nationally, which thus would not conflict with the 9th and 10.
 
Dog Soldier,
This is a quick and dirty take. The decision that limited the Bill of Right's application to the federal government was Barron v. Baltimore. That, along with other decisions such as Dred Scott, was effectively nullified by the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has disfavored actually employing the original meaning of the privileges and immunities clause in the original Constitution and the later wording in the 14th. One of those privileges was firearm ownership according to congressional debates at the time. However, after the Slaughterhouse cases, the Supreme Court effectively wrote that part of the 14th out of the Constitution. Thus, we get the current selective incorporation dance with current Supreme Court jurisprudence--under McDonald v City of Chicago, the 2nd amendment applies to the states--period. Second, given that state restrictions on travelers has effectively been effectively circumvented via the Commerce clause (see Heart of Dixie Motel decision among others), regulations that tend to hinder interstate travel by states can be overcome by congressional legislation using its commerce clause power. So yes, Congress has the power under the Commerce clause to override state regulations for travelers as sufficient nexus has already been established by previous FOPA with the safe passage provisions overriding state laws already. In addition, Congress certainly has the power to stop New York city from harassing travelers with firearms who land at their airports during unscheduled stops and charging them with firearm crimes when they have to take possession of their firearms due to flight delays.
 
Dog Soldier said:
A Constitutional Right is not an Entitlement. The Bill Of Rights was added to the Body Constitution to protect individual Rights from the Federal over reach. This allows the people and their various states to approve freedoms not necessarily condoned by the Fed. I would not want to trade this for the right to carry in New York City.:uhoh:
Click to expand...
The Constitution does not "allow" actions but prevents actions by the government and as amended by the states.
Under the Heller and McDonald decisions of SCOTUS we have a case where all states are mandated to allow handguns in your home and some form of carry in public (with or without a license).
I think even with a new mandate for Reciprocity, before this issue is settled it will take SCOTUS to become involved. For me Constitutional Carry is the desired end result, but I also see that to get there we may need to have to have licensed carry now. The main advantage of licensed carry is that you can document the crime rate of licensed legal carry vs illegal carry vs police vs general population.
 
If anyone wants to support states rights in this issue then fly with a gun with a changeover in a NY airport. The local law officers are known to make stops based on their profiling and will attempt to make an arrest even tho Federal law says you are legal inside the airport. After all, the gun is in a locked container, ammo in a container, and the baggage was already checked and handed off for you to catch another flight at a different terminal.

If states rights supercede YOUR right to travel from one pro gun state to another by risking arrest, then reconcile that. I don't see where the state of NY has a right to deprive me of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. It's simply an Unconstitutional wrong that hasn't yet been corrected. And despite the prevailing institutional attitude there - they will thank us in the long run. Like it or not.

If they don't like guns in their state - then the airlines need to rearrange their flights to offer us a better travel opportunity. That opens a big nest of snakes on a lot of levels. It's easier to force NY state to own up for citizens rights than reorganize the travel infrastructure by closing major international airports or increasing costs thru class action lawsuits.

It's all about a power struggle and guns are just one football they like to work with. I can see Trump stumping for change inviting NY leaders to the Tower and discussing how the alternatives weigh out.
 
I am interested to see how a national concealed carry bill would be implemented. I am not in favor of there being a national ID card or database for carry. I think the actual printing and issuance of the permit should be left to the states. However there are so many different types of carry permits at the county and state levels. What is the permit in one county, state could look like a forgery to a NY police officer. So there would have to be some similarities in layout, like how it is done with drivers licenses.
 
Dog Soldier said:
Under a Federal Gun Program who would check you out? Would you be held until an FBI BGC could be preformed? Do you believe getting a CCW from the Federal government would be easier than through your state? Just think instead of 50 different governments it would take only one Liberal Democrat to end the rights in all 50 states.:thumbdown:
Click to expand...
Reciprocity has nothing to do with the Federal government "issuing" concealed carry licenses, as that would not be the case.

States would continue to write their own carry laws and issue licenses accordingly.

Reciprocity would merely render those licenses valid in every state.

It isn't a "states' rights" issue.
 
Dog Soldier said:
A Constitutional Right is not an Entitlement. The Bill Of Rights was added to the Body Constitution to protect individual Rights from the Federal over reach. This allows the people and their various states to approve freedoms not necessarily condoned by the Fed. I would not want to trade this for the right to carry in New York City.:uhoh:
Click to expand...
Reciprocity has nothing to do with Federal authority or giving the Federal government "more power."

Drivers' licenses are issued by the states, pursuant to state law, not by the Federal government, valid in each state per the doctrine of reciprocity; the same would be the case with carry licenses
 
jdc1244 said:
Reciprocity has nothing to do with Federal authority or giving the Federal government "more power."

Drivers' licenses are issued by the states, pursuant to state law, not by the Federal government, valid in each state per the doctrine of reciprocity; the same would be the case with carry licenses
Click to expand...

Sure it does. Driver's licenses are recognized by agreement, not by federal rule. If, say, one state issued licenses to 14 year-olds, other states could unilaterally reject those licenses. If they were forced to recognize those licenses by federal law, as would be the case for the proposed CCW law, it could only be done by federal law. California, NJ, and NY will never voluntarily consent to recognize CCW licenses from other states - it has to be imposed on them, which could only be done at a federal level.
 
The main advantage of licensed carry is that you can document the crime rate of licensed legal carry vs illegal carry vs police vs general population.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point! At present I'd prefer the efforts put into constitutional carry be diverted instead to making carry licenses become: shall issue, low or no fee, and valid until revoked for cause.

I register to vote and I don't need to do anything else unless I move, its automatically renewed, and costs me nothing, CHL should act the same way and be about as easy!
 
Dog Soldier said:
A Constitutional Right is not an Entitlement. The Bill Of Rights was added to the Body Constitution to protect individual Rights from the Federal over reach. This allows the people and their various states to approve freedoms not necessarily condoned by the Fed. I would not want to trade this for the right to carry in New York City.:uhoh:
Click to expand...

But States are not supposed to have the authority to infringe upon the core rights outlined in the USC, intended to be unconditional rights by birth (or naturalization) as an American citizen. In this case, it is State over reach as much as it is Federal over reach, as both are violating the 2A. States can add, but to my understanding are not supposed to take away from, these core Constitutional rights, correct?

The CCW process can still be administratively handled at the State level, but all States should be shall-issue and shall provide reciprocity. For example, many matters involving courts are handled on a State level, but they are still held to a standard guaranteed in the USC, in that the accused have the right to a fair trial. What some States are doing with gun control is the equivalent of selectively suspending due process and pretending the sixth Amendment does not exist, and then implementing their own standards.

If the preference is to keep this at the State level, can the Federal government instruct States to recognize reciprocity and to be 'shall issue'?
 
roscoe said:
Sure it does. Driver's licenses are recognized by agreement, not by federal rule. If, say, one state issued licenses to 14 year-olds, other states could unilaterally reject those licenses. If they were forced to recognize those licenses by federal law, as would be the case for the proposed CCW law, it could only be done by federal law. California, NJ, and NY will never voluntarily consent to recognize CCW licenses from other states - it has to be imposed on them, which could only be done at a federal level.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.

When one becomes a resident of a different state he must apply for a new driver's license, subject to the law and qualifications of his new state of residence, just as he would a carry license, separate and apart from reciprocity.
 
jdc1244 said:
Reciprocity has nothing to do with the Federal government "issuing" concealed carry licenses, as that would not be the case.

States would continue to write their own carry laws and issue licenses accordingly.

Reciprocity would merely render those licenses valid in every state.

It isn't a "states' rights" issue.
Click to expand...

Finally, someone here that gets it!
 
It isn't complicated. The second amendment prohibits government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Requiring permits for law abiding citizens to bear firearms is an infringement, and a tax if there is a fee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRX
Getting the Federal government involved would be a big mistake.

jdc1244 said:
No, it doesn't.

When one becomes a resident of a different state he must apply for a new driver's license, subject to the law and qualifications of his new state of residence, just as he would a carry license, separate and apart from reciprocity.
Click to expand...
But, if you have a driver's license issued in New York, it is valid in all states, not by Federal mandate, but by agreement between New York State and the other 49 States. Many licenses are not mutually recognized, I don't believe medical licenses are universally recognized.

By asking for a Federal mandate, would then open the door to Federal rules to who, why and how a license will be issued. These rules would be subject to Congressional meddling.
 
I'll say it again: Getting the Federal government involved would be a big mistake.


jdc1244 said:
Reciprocity has nothing to do with Federal authority or giving the Federal government "more power."

Drivers' licenses are issued by the states, pursuant to state law, not by the Federal government, valid in each state per the doctrine of reciprocity; the same would be the case with carry licenses
Click to expand...
That shows profound naivete on your part.

Driver's licenses are granted reciprocity by agreement between states, not by Federal mandate. Therefore there are no means with which the Federal Government can interfere with individual States rules and regulations on "shall issue" rules or age limitations, or return of suspended licenses.

As evidenced by the current state of affairs, the only way all states will grant reciprocity on CCWs is through Federal mandate. That's means someone will have to figure out the an acceptable "minimum criteria" for issue of such licenses, who do think that will be Alabama's State Legislature? California's State Legislature? No, it will be the Federal Government, and if you think that anti-gun crowd in Congress will allow a "shall issue" rule to stand, you smoking something illegal in most states (and by Federal law too, BTW).

Federal intervention is a Pandora's box that best be left alone.
 
Last edited:
Tirod said:
If anyone wants to support states rights in this issue then fly with a gun with a changeover in a NY airport. The local law officers are known to make stops based on their profiling and will attempt to make an arrest even tho Federal law says you are legal inside the airport. After all, the gun is in a locked container, ammo in a container, and the baggage was already checked and handed off for you to catch another flight at a different terminal.

If states rights supercede YOUR right to travel from one pro gun state to another by risking arrest, then reconcile that. I don't see where the state of NY has a right to deprive me of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. It's simply an Unconstitutional wrong that hasn't yet been corrected. And despite the prevailing institutional attitude there - they will thank us in the long run. Like it or not.

If they don't like guns in their state - then the airlines need to rearrange their flights to offer us a better travel opportunity. That opens a big nest of snakes on a lot of levels. It's easier to force NY state to own up for citizens rights than reorganize the travel infrastructure by closing major international airports or increasing costs thru class action lawsuits.

It's all about a power struggle and guns are just one football they like to work with. I can see Trump stumping for change inviting NY leaders to the Tower and discussing how the alternatives weigh out.
Click to expand...
Many States are happy with flaunting Federal laws. Take marijuana, for example.

Under Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811), it is still classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the Federal Government views cannabis as highly addictive and having no medical value. This law has not been changed, or amended to differentiate between medical pot, pot for recreational use, or any other use. Federal law applies throughout Washington D.C. and the United States, not just on federal property.

Yet there are at least 40 states that happily flaunt that law. Where you stand on this issue is immaterial, but it does show that States can do whatever they want until the USAG decides to make a point and takes the issue to court.

The example you cite is just another example of a state, or perhaps just a locality acting in contravention to Federal laws.
 
roscoe said:
Sure it does. Driver's licenses are recognized by agreement, not by federal rule. If, say, one state issued licenses to 14 year-olds, other states could unilaterally reject those licenses. If they were forced to recognize those licenses by federal law, as would be the case for the proposed CCW law, it could only be done by federal law. California, NJ, and NY will never voluntarily consent to recognize CCW licenses from other states - it has to be imposed on them, which could only be done at a federal level.
Click to expand...

Way back in the dark ages Idaho used to issue day time only drivers license. We were told in drivers training that this license was only good in the state of Idaho.

That being said. We, as American citizens have a Constitutional Right to carry firearms. Right now in most states we're required to ask permission and pay a fee. Some states still refuse to recognize this right.

A Federal mandate to recognize a CHL from another state IMHO is a step in the right direction.

It's only through Federal inaction that the Second Amendment has become infringed to the degree it has. It's going to take Federal action to roll back those infringments.
 
This nonsense of comparing various licenses that are not on topic and whether or not they are interstate valid is beyond ridiculous.

Being a doctor, plumber, electrician, lawyer, or having a DL etc., and whether or not those credentials carry over from one state to another has nothing to do with constitutional rights.

It's ironic how most complain about the Fed overreaching on constitutional rights yet in the case of the 2A we let the states do the overreaching and are content to let them. I am generally for states taking care of their own business but as was mentioned, "It's only through Federal inaction that the Second Amendment has become infringed to the degree it has. It's going to take Federal action to roll back those infringments."

The ideal scenario would be a national "constitutional carry". No permits, no licenses, just a mandate/law. A national reciprocity mandate seems more realistic though.


However, regardless of what becomes, even if it were the "ideal", you can rest assured that some states will refuse to follow the law of the land. There are several current examples of this. In that sense I don't know that it matters what happens.
 
lysanderxiii said:
I'll say it again: Getting the Federal government involved would be a big mistake.



That shows profound naivete on your part.

Driver's licenses are granted reciprocity by agreement between states, not by Federal mandate. Therefore there are no means with which the Federal Government can interfere with individual States rules and regulations on "shall issue" rules or age limitations, or return of suspended licenses.

As evidenced by the current state of affairs, the only way all states will grant reciprocity on CCWs is through Federal mandate. That's means someone will have to figure out the an acceptable "minimum criteria" for issue of such licenses, who do think that will be Alabama's State Legislature? California's State Legislature? No, it will be the Federal Government, and if you think that anti-gun crowd in Congress will allow a "shall issue" rule to stand, you smoking something illegal in most states (and by Federal law too, BTW).

Federal intervention is a Pandora's box that best be left alone.
Click to expand...

But as of right now, there are States that are not issuing "drivers licenses" to their own residents, are not recognizing "out-of-State drivers licenses" of others, and may even be profiling those suspected to have "out-of-state drivers licenses." And while drivers licenses are not mentioned in the USC, "drivers licenses" are mentioned by name, at the top, and with the simplest of wording.

So even though the doctrine that is supposed to determine how the country is run is on our side, and public opinion is on our side, the Federal government is not, many State governments are not, and plenty of local politicians everywhere or not. So does this mean we get screwed regardless of what direction we move in? Who is it in authority then that can implement "shall not be infringed"?

If a State violates any of the other Constitutional rights, the Federal government has historically taken action to ensure that such right is not infringed upon. For example, if California decided to pass a law requiring all citizens to get fingerprinted, take a poly, and submit to a urine test before being able to speak freely, the USC would override CA's authority to do so and action would be taken.

So if a State or a locality further infringers upon the 2A, what do we do? Aren't we currently presented with a solid opportunity to roll back some of the gun control damage done by all levels of government?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
National CCW reciprocity
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
goon
G
S
  • Locked
Nevada Bill to allow Out of State CCW's Pending
Replies
6
Views
553
Standing Wolf
S
A
  • Locked
How does National CCW Reciprocity work with states that are Constitutional Carry?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Spats McGee
Spats McGee
T
  • Locked
State statistics on CCW
Replies
4
Views
411
The Unknown User
T
KBintheSLC
  • Locked
HR 197 - Nation-Wide CCW Reciprocity
Replies
3
Views
334
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
Back
Top