Possible Nationwide CC Coming????

Poper said:

Mark W. Smith (a lawyer) says this could be the case that brings about CC nationwide:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/sep/2/good-samaritan-faces-charges-after-stopping-armed-/



Mr. Smith's argument is that your 2nd amendment right travels with you wherever you go in the US same as all the rest of them. And Mr. Muldrow intends to go to trial.

Grab the popcorn! This one could be fun!

Click to expand...

I would love to carry in Oregon and Nevada!!! and especially in California

if they ease up things! SD CA is a amazing place

Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

Sounds good but..... here in NJ they will issue ccw now after jumping through many hoops.That being said ,the restriction on where you can carry will make it all but useless to have, Nj is following NY restriction guidelines.

No I figured that it will get challenged and then reversed but it just how long will that take.

Poper said:

you would have heard his argument that SCOTUS specifically said "You can't do that" without violating a citizen's civil rights.

Click to expand...

And, yet, the NY CCIA slapped Bruen right in the face.

I've seen the US go from where legal ccw was rare and uncommon. Until Florida broke the logjam with "shall issue" permits in the 80s. "Our" side has enlarged to almost half the US. And, those States are moving ever closer to uniform standards, and with mutual reciprocity.

The real problem are in those States unwilling to set aside their over-arching regulations. They will (an have) dug in their spurs and are actively resisting being drug into the modern, sensible world.

One of the things "we" much be wary of are political half measures. Politicians are mendacious and able to speak with forked tongues are readily as ordinary folk draw breath, and as autonomically, too. So, suppose the political class goes "Ok, here's your bill--all permits are legal everywhere!! Happy now??" Without bothering to specify the "how" (a common occurrence in 2A legislation over the last century). So, let's say your permit is good, but, you have to comply with the rules in Whatever State you are in. Right now, that means you'd need 5-6 different FOIDs, up to 18 hours of classroom and rang training, and have all manner of magazine sizes.

That's why we have to be "Careful for what we wish for."

Slow and steady has been "winning the race." We are seeing ever larger numbers of Shall Issue States move to No Permit Required.
Sadly, this is also casting a stark contrast between States with liberty and those without.

This is directed to the general readership, not any individual. Do you really want a nation wide CCW permit and allow the Feds to set the requirements for getting such permit? Want Ms. Pelosi or her clone having a hand in the rules? To me it's a nightmare scenario. .

I think the OP's "cc" means constitutional carry. Although, that chould be CCC for "constitutional concealed carry" That being the case, none of your other constitutional rights stop at a state line. Carry should be legal within the borders of the US for all citizens.

"Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says, leave the legal maneuvering out of it. Gun bans, mag restrictions, off limit places? All are unconstitutional, the state or federal government does not have legal authority to pass these laws.

Every gun law passed since the bill of rights was ratified is illegal.

All that said, even I believe there are a very few places where carry should be tightly controlled, but its a really short list. Prison visiting areas for one, patient only areas in psychiatric hospitals. Thats about it. Even those areas should have stroage for citizens weapons and an armed guard to protect their property.

Age restrictions. Whatever the youngest age is for driving, consent, voting, medical consent, sex change, abortion, joining the military. If they're deemed mature enough for that, then they are mature enough to protect themselves.

Gun crimes. Hammer them. It'll stop. Hold criminals responsible for their own actions, everybody else too for that matter. Want to restrict guns? Criminals are an acceptable place to do that, punish violent criminals, not me.

Perfect and complete? No. But I believe most people would agree that its a good start. There are many reasons that national "Constitutional Carry" would cure many of the current ills this nation faces.

It's difficult for soccer mom Sally and 9 to 5 Tom to worry about any other issues when they can't walk the dog around the block without worrying about their basic safety.

Reestablishing our rights to personal safety and self protection will embolden American citizens to push back on the other issues that plague us right now.

Just one mans opinion. No arguments needed.

Biden is openly supporting NY's attempt to overturn Buren with their Safe Zones and Social Media score to determine if you should get a permit. I don't see a national concealed carry standard being developed in my lifetime let alone this administration.

burrhead writes:

This is directed to the general readership, not any individual. Do you really want a nation wide CCW permit and allow the Feds to set the requirements for getting such permit? Want Ms. Pelosi or her clone having a hand in the rules? To me it's a nightmare scenario. .

Click to expand...

I've been saying this for quite a while, but a lot of people still don't get it. They try to equate it with drivers' licenses, but states still regulate how you drive differently from one another.

MedWheeler said:

They try to equate it with drivers' licenses, but states still regulate how you drive differently from one another.

Click to expand...

Motor Vehicle Codes are far, far more closely aligned with each other across the 50 states than gun laws. If we could get all state gun laws to be even half as congruent as MVCs, that would be a major step in the right direction.

The complication is that guns, for whatever reason, are much more politically divisive than cars are; despite guns having a much longer history, tradition and cultural significance in the USA.

Hopefully.


This is the case in a prior thread:




https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-proper-case-for-constitutional-carry.910900/

Tinman357 said:

"Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says, leave the legal maneuvering out of it. Gun bans, mag restrictions, off limit places? All are unconstitutional, the state or federal government does not have legal authority to pass these laws.

Every gun law passed since the bill of rights was ratified is illegal.

Click to expand...

"Infringe" and "regulate" do not mean the same thing.

Nor are you the one who gets to decide what is and is not Constitutional.

CapnMac said:

So, suppose the political class goes "Ok, here's your bill--all permits are legal everywhere!! Happy now??" Without bothering to specify the "how" (a common occurrence in 2A legislation over the last century). So, let's say your permit is good, but, you have to comply with the rules in Whatever State you are in. Right now, that means you'd need 5-6 different FOIDs, up to 18 hours of classroom and rang training, and have all manner of magazine sizes.
.

Click to expand...

With current reciprocity agreements, that is already true as far as rules on how, where, and in some cases, what you can carry. Some states require comparable training for reciprocity, but none of them require the exact same training. If the federal courts mandate that States may not prohibit non-residents from exercising their 2A rights, that is only part of the puzzle. There will no doubt continue to be issues with restrictive states dealing with that aspect that will result in more litigation.

There are already lawsuits being filed against sensitive area restrictions (NY) weapon/magazine restrictions (CO), and other various restrictions (CA) all of which seem to be gaining traction. As more of these restrictions are ruled unconstitutional, the closer we will be to a uniform standard throughout the country.

burrhead said:

This is directed to the general readership, not any individual. Do you really want a nation wide CCW permit and allow the Feds to set the requirements for getting such permit? Want Ms. Pelosi or her clone having a hand in the rules? To me it's a nightmare scenario. .

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is advocating for a Federally issued permit.

Motor Vehicle Codes are far, far more closely aligned with each other across the 50 states than gun laws. If we could get all state gun laws to be even half as congruent as MVCs, that would be a major step in the right direction.

Click to expand...

Once upon a time, the Federal government stepped in during an "oil crisis" and restricted the national speed limit to 55mph, in the interest of energy conservation. Due to the current political hostility toward the oil industry, many other Federally-imposed actions have since been levied against what drivers could construe as relative freedom in operating motor vehicles, actions intended to make it less practical and less enjoyable, in the name of both energy and environmental conservation.

Imagine a similar distaste on the part of the Feds toward the idea of armed citizens being able to move about the country with similar freedom. Then, imagine the steps said Feds could take to make it more "palatable" to them. If they can cap our speed at 55mph no matter in which state we drive, what would stop them from capping our magazine capacity, caliber size, or number of guns carried? After all, if it's good enough for the most-populated states (NY and CA), it should be good enough for all, right?

I don’t know why anyone would want the .gov to regulate their rights for them.

No way in hell do I want the federal god'vernment having anything to do with it.
They'll add so many restrictions, evaluations and hoops to jump thru ..... Never mind the costs

Nope...I'll keep states rights with reciprocity to other states. I don't venture to states that don't honor my LTC.

MedWheeler said:

Once upon a time, the Federal government stepped in during an "oil crisis" and restricted the national speed limit to 55mph, in the interest of energy conservation.

Imagine a similar distaste on the part of the Feds toward the idea of armed citizens being able to move about the country with similar freedom. Then, imagine the steps said Feds could take to make it more "palatable" to them. If they can cap our speed at 55mph no matter in which state we drive, what would stop them from capping our magazine capacity, caliber size, or number of guns carried? After all, if it's good enough for the most-populated states (NY and CA), it should be good enough for all, right?

Click to expand...

The speed limit change wasn't exactly a national speed limit. They coerced the states by withholding federal funds for road repairs to those who refused to adopt a 55 mph limit in their state law.

Reciprocity agreements allow citizens to freely move around in 80% of the states. If the feds don't like it, they haven't tried to do anything about it as yet. If they did try to pass some restrictions, they would be bound by NYSRPA vs Bruen that has established that you can't ban weapons that are in common use nor can you have gun laws that aren't similar to restrictions that date from 1791 or 1868. What that means, exactly, hasn't been fleshed out yet, but will be very soon.

The Bruen decision has recognized an individual's right to the means of self defense outside the home. It didn't specify that it was restricted to one's home state. If the courts follow the logical conclusion that states must, in some manner, provide for nonresident carry, I don't see why some people are equating that with having federally dictated regulations or a federally issued license.

JN01 said:

The speed limit change wasn't exactly a national speed limit. They coerced the states by withholding federal funds for road repairs to those who refused to adopt a 55 mph limit in their state law.

Reciprocity agreements allow citizens to freely move around in 80% of the states. If the feds don't like it, they haven't tried to do anything about it as yet. If they did try to pass some restrictions, they would be bound by NYSRPA vs Bruen that has established that you can't ban weapons that are in common use nor can you have gun laws that don't have similar restrictions that date from 1791 or 1868. What that means, exactly, hasn't been fleshed out yet, but will be very soon.

The Bruen decision has recognized an individual's right to the means of self defense outside the home. It didn't specify that it was restricted to one's home state. If the courts follow the logical conclusion that states must, in some manner, provide for nonresident carry, I don't see why some people are equating that with having federally dictated regulations or a federally issued license.

Click to expand...

Yep. They did the same thing with drinking age. Louisiana was the last state to raise it to 21 back in the good ole 90’s. The Clinton administration threatened to withhold 17 million in interstate money unless they raised the age.
I can move to a different state, not so much countries. I don’t trust the feds with anything.

Nationwide constitutional carry is what we need. Not nationwide permit recognition which would be alot easier for the government to set parameters for.

burrhead said:

This is directed to the general readership, not any individual. Do you really want a nation wide CCW permit and allow the Feds to set the requirements for getting such permit? Want Ms. Pelosi or her clone having a hand in the rules? To me it's a nightmare scenario. .

Click to expand...

I think the idea being constitutional carry, no permit, no documented ownership, no papers, no whatever.

film495 said:

I think the idea being constitutional carry, no permit, no documented ownership, no papers, no whatever.

Click to expand...

That would be nice but SCOTUS has already said that some types of shall issue permits are constitutional, so probably not likely anytime soon. I would guess that a few more states will join the current 25 permitless carry states in the near future so we are getting closer.