H.R.1243- National CCW bill introduced

[giancarlo]

"Hey, if freed slaves could bear arms, why cant law abiding californians?"

Freed slaves were not given the right to bear arms. The first gun control laws were enacted after the Civil War, primarily to keep blacks from being able to own and carry firearms.

 

[io333]

Also, there's a thread over here:

http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/36857/


that explains there is no "national reciprocity" for drivers licenses. Rather, the states have all voluntarily entered into agreements with each other vis a vis DLs.


That is what we are doing right now, quietly. Unfortunately it's not going to be so quiet any more because I have to keep bringing it up and plenty of antis read these threads too. NRA has been finding receptive state legislators to sponsor "Model CCW Reciprocity Code." that has been passing in the state legislatures with no resistance -- no even the teensiest radar blip. I expect that within five years, most, if not all of the current "shall issue" states will have it in place, just like DLs... Unless all you "national" folks destroy everything.

 

[71Commander]

The constitution supports Federal oversite on state laws. To those of you who disagree, I suggest you look at the national ramifications of Supreme Court rulings and how it affects your life.

Refusing to acknowledge the authority and oversite of the Federal Government will not make it go away. It'll just mean your voice is not heard.

We would do well to keep this in mind.

As to a national CCW law, authorized by the feds, I don't see it. This resolution still keeps the power at the state level. You have to meet the requirements of your home state and get your "permission" from the state. All this does is guarentee your right to be legally armed in all states, without fear of repercussions.

 

[Gray Peterson]

It COULD lay the ground work for a future congress to tack on additional riders requiring the states to mandate a process for obtaining a conceal carry permit. If this future congress is anti-gun, it COULD deal a severe blow to our 2nd amendment freedoms.

They can do that already, even without national CCW reciprocity on the forefront.

 

[71Commander]

Actual text added in post # 1.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=129814&page=1&pp=25

 

[io333]

They can do that already, even without national CCW reciprocity on the forefront.

But this gets the ball rolling. Before this, no one in Congress was aware that there was a ball.

 

[io333]

And to answer that thought you just had: well sure, a few astute doggies could smell that there was a ball, but they were not allowed to touch the ball. Now EVERYONE gets to put their filthy mouths on the ball, pick it up, roll it around -- even PEE on it!

 

[io333]

and no I am NOT being paranoid. Some of you are not paranoid enough! Be careful for what you wish for.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Imagine that this bill passes and it is VASTLY more restrictive many of the state CCW laws (lets say it requires CLEO sign-off). I can imagine that a lot of states are simply going to drop their own concealed carry rules and go with the federal version (why pay to mantain their own system when the feds will do it for them). This would leave us in a worse position than when we started.

I do not understand this, and other, objections to this bill.

The bill calls for reciprocity, not for a national CCW. The bill says NOTHING about establishing a national CCW database. All it does is require that the states offer "full faith and credit" to citizens of other states regarding CCW. Isn't this what we've been asking for all along?

What am I missing here? Why is this bill a bad thing?

And IO333, with all due respect, it does appear to me that you ARE a bit paranoid. I read your arguments both here and on packing.org, and they don't explain satisfactorily why you are so adamendtly opposed to this bill. I would ask you to elucidate, but as you've already said you're done, I guess we'll wait for other opinions to arrive.

 

[El Rojo]

What am I missing here? Why is this bill a bad thing?

Because it takes a traditionally states rights issue and federalizes it. There are those still in this country who still firmly believe in government handled at the smallest levels and a weak national government. One could point to the many federal laws today and the gross abuse of national power as evidence of why things keep going downhill as the federal government keeps getting involved in more and more issues that were once the sole responsibility of the state. As was pointed out before, if a state like the PRK only wants to recognize a few other states' requirements, then that should be their right. If you want to claim this is a Second Amendment issue, then we need to see a new amendment clarifying the Second Amendment and clearing this issue up once and for all for all of the states. However, you would have a harder time claiming that you needed CCW for national defense and discouraging state sponsored tyranny. As much as you might believe in the 2nd and what you think it stands for, there is obviously some room for interpretation there and the states can and will make those decisions based upon the will of the electorate that chooses them. If you don't like your representatives, then you need to try and remove them. Asking for national reciprocity that might infringe upon other states decisions is rather short sighted in my opinion.

However, if Congress passes it and Dubya signs it, then I guess the people will have spoken and it will be my job to fight it! I will do so by traveling across the country in my car and carrying the whole way to DC! Now, how will this effect my traveling in DC? That is a good question.

I do not understand this, and other, objections to this bill.

The original text of this bill had not been released yet at the beginning of this thread. It was not until yesterday that the actual text was posted so we could see exactly what this bill meant. In order for many of you to be able to understand the desent in this thread, you would actually have to read the whole thing. The issue of national CCW is now dead! We are now debating national reciprocity and its effects on local governmental control.

 

[71Commander]

However, if Congress passes it and Dubya signs it, then I guess the people will have spoken and it will be my job to fight it! I will do so by traveling across the country in my car and carrying the whole way to DC! Now, how will this effect my traveling in DC? That is a good question.

In this example, the states rights argument is not applicable as DC has no state powers because it's not a state. Interesting argument though. How will this law, if passed, apply to DC?

 

[io333]

And IO333, with all due respect, it does appear to me that you ARE a bit paranoid. I read your arguments both here and on packing.org, and they don't explain satisfactorily why you are so adamendtly opposed to this bill.

Because of what El Rojo says in his post above this:

it takes a traditionally states rights issue and federalizes it

If you do not understand the implications of that, I just don't know what else to say.

 

[io333]

But I just thought of an example:



Let's say you want to build a car. Pretend long ago, your state passed a law that says you can build as many cars as you want any way you want to. Can you build a car? NO. Why? Because the federal government has since passed legislation in that area to the extent that it is clear that they have decided to usurp all state legislation regarding car manufacture. Now, if you want to build a car, you have to have permission from the federal government, even though car building was previously, before the federal laws were enacting, clearly regulated at the state level. So let's say your state passes a brand new law, again saying you can build cars. Can you do it now? No. Why? Same reason: "Because the federal government has since blah blah blah...."


This principle of constitutional law is FIRMLY established, and has been for something like eighty years.

Here's another example: Remember Drive 55 Stay Alive? There was no evidence it saved lives. There was plenty of evidence to the contrary. Before 1974, the states set the speed limits. Congress decided to take over in 1974 and passed 55. Could the states pass new speed limit laws? Sure. Would new state speed limit laws have any effect? Nope. EVERYBODY GOT SCREWED and there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do about it for 20 years until we turned over congress in 1994, and they repealed the law.

There is NO DIFFERENCE here.

 

[io333]

I'm starting to feel like I'm alone in the wilderness, screaming at the snow. If y'all want me to shut up, I will.

 

[71Commander]

Here's another example: Remember Drive 55 Stay Alive? There was no evidence it saved lives. There was plenty of evidence to the contrary. Before 1974, the states set the speed limits. Congress decided to take over in 1974 and passed 55. Could the states pass new speed limit laws? Sure. Would new state speed limit laws have any effect? Nope. EVERYBODY GOT SCREWED and there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do about it for 20 years until we turned over congress in 1994, and they repealed the law.

I don't recall it this way. I remember a few states that refused to adhere to the 55 limit. S. Dakota, Montana? What happened is the feds with held federal $$$ to the state for non-compliance to federal mandates.

 

[flatrock]

The Constitution of the United States does not grant the Federal government the power to enact or enforce this law.

If this law passes it would create a horrible precedent that would likely be used to harm our rights in the future.

Nationwide concealed carry needs to be done through State laws where the states get together and make it happen. It should not, and constitutionally cannot be done at the federal level.

 

[beerslurpy]

I love how this thread has brought all the "states are sovereign powers" nutjobs out of the woodwork.

CA has no more right to deny gun rights to people than the federal government.

If you dont like that, repeal the 14th amendment.

You can whine and pretend the beast doesnt exist, but congress is currently full of people that know their constituents are gun owners and want to do stuff to please them. So theyre going to pass laws to please us. If these laws turn out to be unconstitutional, then SCOTUS will overturn and we lose nothing. Id rather congress spend its time passing laws that are good for gun owners than passing laws that screw gun owners and having to rely on SCOTUS to overturn them like it did in Lopez decision.

If you dont like the fact that congress is passing laws that infringe on the sovereignity of the individual states, then elect reps/senators that wont do that. But good luck finding one, because they are playing by the rules of the current game, not the one some of us might like them to play.

You will have to undertake a major reshaping of political views in this country if you want a hands-off early 19th century style congress that doesnt spend any money or pass any laws except the enumerated powers. But this is an enumerated powers law, so I am doubly confused.

 

[io333]

I don't recall it this way. I remember a few states that refused to adhere to the 55 limit. S. Dakota, Montana? What happened is the feds with held federal $$$ to the state for non-compliance to federal mandates.

I just looked this up. You are correct. Regardless, my first example with automobiles still holds, and the principle of constitutional law is still established.


Even though you are correct though, name me any state that hasn't dropped to its knees whenever it's "highway money" is extorted? Same effect, different principle.

I wonder if a lot of the people here advocating federal involvement in CCW are too young to remember what it was like with a Democrat controlled congress & executive... although the current congress & executive seem more like the old Democrats every day...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The Constitution of the United States does not grant the Federal government the power to enact or enforce this law.

Of course they do. It has already been mentioned in this thread -- the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. United States citizens are routinely being deprived of a Constitutionally guaranteed right when they travel to other states. This is precisely the type of situation where the federal government does have the power to act.

And before we bring up the packing.org attempt to derail the drivers license parallel, it should be noted (and was, in that discussion) that the fact a few states choose to codify drivers license reciprocity does not mean they had to, or that all states have done so. In fact, the one instance cited was only to establish some limitations on what out of state licenses would be recognized -- and those limits may or may not be Constitutional. For example, it mentioned 17 years of age, but my state issues drivers licenses at 16. So my kid with a valid license at the age of 16 would have to stop at the NJ border until his 17th birthday?

 

[io333]

If you dont like that, repeal the 14th amendment.

Please review the doctrine of "selective incorporation." The second has not been incorporated. I'm dealing with existing case law. You are not.

 

[io333]

BTW Beerslurpy, I just noticed your name. That's really freakin' funny.

 

[71Commander]

This is not a nationwide concealed carry law. It is a nationwide reciprocity law. The CCW is still to be issued at the state level. If your state doesn't issue a CCW, then you're poop outta luck.

 

[io333]

Id rather congress spend its time passing laws that are good for gun owners than passing laws that screw gun owners and having to rely on SCOTUS to overturn them like it did in Lopez decision.

Did you know that Lopez being overturned changed nothing? The REPUBLICAN congress just repassed the the same law with something like six extra words.

 

[io333]

This is not a nationwide concealed carry law. It is a nationwide reciprocity law. The CCW is still to be issued at the state level. If your state doesn't issue a CCW, then you're poop outta luck.

The way the bill is currently written, any Illinois resident could obtain a FL non-resident and carry in Illinois. It IS a de facto nationwide CCW law as currently written, even though it is not framed as such.

 

[io333]

Oops, I take that back. Illinois has no CCW at all, so bad example. Substitute the word CALIFORNIA for ILLINOIS.