H.R.1243- National CCW bill introduced
- Thread starter 71Commander
- Start date
- Status
bamawrx
Member
Question for io333,
Lets say Congress did repeal NFA, GCA 68' Sec 923, etc.. Would it then be your opinion that each State could then regulate fully the private ownership of some classes of firearms?
Lets say Congress did repeal NFA, GCA 68' Sec 923, etc.. Would it then be your opinion that each State could then regulate fully the private ownership of some classes of firearms?
Aguila Blanca
Member
No, it is not. It is a national reciprocity law. The federal government would not be issuing licenses or permits, and would not be maintaining any records. Would it result in CCW holders being able to carry nationwide? Of course -- that's the point. But it is NOT a nationwide CCW bill. It does not establish a single, nationwide CCW license or permit. It only requires the individual states to recognize the validity of what the other states have done in licensing or authorizing their citizens to carry concealed weapons.
I'm all for HR 1243 and have contacted my congress critter and asked him to support this bill.
That said I predict:
1) The bill will never be passed. I doubt if it will even hit the floor for a vote by the House. Assuming it does pass the House it will never pass the Senate.
2) In the extremely unlikely event that it does pass the house and the senate and our RINO President signs it some state somewhere will immediately do what ever is required to make it so it doesn't go into effect until the USSC can reconcile the problem of the Feds infringing on what has clearly been a state issue for many years.
3) Assuming the USSC tells the states to pack sand and they better get used to the new law:
WOULD YOU PACK IN A PLACE LIKE NYC?
I sure wouldn't wanna test the issue there even if the Feds were on my side.
That said I predict:
1) The bill will never be passed. I doubt if it will even hit the floor for a vote by the House. Assuming it does pass the House it will never pass the Senate.
2) In the extremely unlikely event that it does pass the house and the senate and our RINO President signs it some state somewhere will immediately do what ever is required to make it so it doesn't go into effect until the USSC can reconcile the problem of the Feds infringing on what has clearly been a state issue for many years.
3) Assuming the USSC tells the states to pack sand and they better get used to the new law:
WOULD YOU PACK IN A PLACE LIKE NYC?
I sure wouldn't wanna test the issue there even if the Feds were on my side.
Yes.
I know that sounds crazy, but I'm working within the framework of our *existing* legal structure. I do not like our current legal structure, but that doesn't matter because it is the reality we live under. It seems fairly obvious that the 2nd amendment forbids the regulation you speak of at the federal level, as does natural law in regards to both the federal and local levels. However, under the current framework of constitutional law, the 2nd has still not been incorporated, which is why we still have thousands upon thousands of state gun control laws. I am of the opinion that incorporation of the 2nd would be the best thing that ever happened to America. Incorporation would wipe away all the state and federal gun control laws in one foop.
What you are asking really, is whether the 2nd amendment was intended, at the time of its writing, to apply to the states -- and if it was not, did the 14th make it apply? That's a huge debate worthy of its own thread.
Folks, I'm pretty worn out on this. At this point all I'm hoping is that a few of the legal eyes on the staff of NRA, the lawers/aids to various congresscritters, and all the rest of you who are considering the merits of this proposed legislation come across this thread and consider the possible negative long term consequences of this bill, and that they weigh those against the proposed benefits.
Even with all of my logical, grammical, and consistency errors, I think I at least gave a few of you a heads-up, so I'm gonna consider my mission accomplished.
cya
Even with all of my logical, grammical, and consistency errors, I think I at least gave a few of you a heads-up, so I'm gonna consider my mission accomplished.
cya
Control Group
Member
io333: I'm sorry to see you go - I was initially wholeheartedly in favor of this bill, but you've at least made me think about it more carefully; I really appreciate that.
More importantly, you say that you think full incorporation of the 2nd would be the best thing that ever happened to America. But unless I'm much mistaken (and I could be), full incorporation is dependent upon a SCOTUS ruling on the matter (or specific Constitutional amendment, I suppose)...which won't happen unless a relevant case goes before SCOTUS. Wouldn't this law, if passed, provide an ideal opportunity to achieve full incorporation of the 2nd? Since, after all, that is in large part what this law would be effectively doing by other means.
More importantly, you say that you think full incorporation of the 2nd would be the best thing that ever happened to America. But unless I'm much mistaken (and I could be), full incorporation is dependent upon a SCOTUS ruling on the matter (or specific Constitutional amendment, I suppose)...which won't happen unless a relevant case goes before SCOTUS. Wouldn't this law, if passed, provide an ideal opportunity to achieve full incorporation of the 2nd? Since, after all, that is in large part what this law would be effectively doing by other means.
El Rojo
Member
Yes I would. If the law says I can, I will. I pack in Los Angeles and San Francisco. If a cop has an issue with that, they will have to get over it because I have justice on my side. I will not be intimidated by people who are clearly wrong. So if this thing passes, I will pack everywhere I can. With the law on your side, you have nothing to fear.
El Rojo
Member
To follow in io333's footsteps, I will be posting on this thread about every 5 minutes with no regard to there being any new information or not, but just as I feel fit in order to run my thread count total up! Just kidding.
As much as I like my anti-federalist republican values (that is little r republican), secretly, I would love to see CCW reciprocity. I am going to Vegas next week and it would be great to not have to lock the Glock up at the border. And in reality, how is this thing going to end up biting us in the end? All it does is say that residents with permits can pack in other states. As much as I don't want the feds to decide the issue and want the states to decide these issues for themselves, I would by lying if I didn't admit that I would benefit from this thing passing.
Now to comment on Beerslurpy's obvious straying from the High Road.
However, you state that "CA has no more right to deny gun rights to people than the federal government." You talk of enumerated powers and along with that goes the government's ability to define what a right to bear arms means. As they have already stated in earlier court decisions, the right to keep and bear arms is referenced in terms of militia type service (do not mistake this as me saying national guard or an organized militia. I am talking about all of our duty to the militia). That is why the Supreme Court didn't issue a real ruling in the Miller case of a sawed off shotgun. You still have to make an argument that any type of decision regarding CCW would have a military connection. Until you can do that and successfully defend it in court, CCW is not a Second Amendment issue. So CA can deny CCW reciprocity to its citizens just like the rest of the states can deny it to their citizens and other citizens. Until the federal government gets involved and uses their supremacy clause to impose their will upon everyone. However, don't mistake "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" as a blank check to do whatever you want. Just as the First Amendment can have stipulations, so can the Second. And as you state, unless we get Congress and the Supreme Court to clarify, that is the way the game is played.
As much as I like my anti-federalist republican values (that is little r republican), secretly, I would love to see CCW reciprocity. I am going to Vegas next week and it would be great to not have to lock the Glock up at the border. And in reality, how is this thing going to end up biting us in the end? All it does is say that residents with permits can pack in other states. As much as I don't want the feds to decide the issue and want the states to decide these issues for themselves, I would by lying if I didn't admit that I would benefit from this thing passing.
Now to comment on Beerslurpy's obvious straying from the High Road.
Would you care to quote where anyone said the states are sovereign powers? Of course not, because you can't due to the fact that you are too busy using personal insults instead of sticking to the issues. This sounds awfully similar to a knee-jerk liberal reaction. Of course there are enumerated powers and we are not arguing that the federal government should be completely laisser faire. However, you are correct that some of feel the federal government has grown too large and they are too powerful. I would like to see them get their paws off of so many programs they have hijacked and now ransom the states with. So I will vote for Congress people who have this in mind. (not really, Bill Thomas will die or quit before he gets taken out of office in Kern County)
However, you state that "CA has no more right to deny gun rights to people than the federal government." You talk of enumerated powers and along with that goes the government's ability to define what a right to bear arms means. As they have already stated in earlier court decisions, the right to keep and bear arms is referenced in terms of militia type service (do not mistake this as me saying national guard or an organized militia. I am talking about all of our duty to the militia). That is why the Supreme Court didn't issue a real ruling in the Miller case of a sawed off shotgun. You still have to make an argument that any type of decision regarding CCW would have a military connection. Until you can do that and successfully defend it in court, CCW is not a Second Amendment issue. So CA can deny CCW reciprocity to its citizens just like the rest of the states can deny it to their citizens and other citizens. Until the federal government gets involved and uses their supremacy clause to impose their will upon everyone. However, don't mistake "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" as a blank check to do whatever you want. Just as the First Amendment can have stipulations, so can the Second. And as you state, unless we get Congress and the Supreme Court to clarify, that is the way the game is played.
Not so fast my arrogant friend. For calling us nutjobs, you sure don't have a good grasp on the Supreme Court. Not only can their ruling shoot down the laws we might try to get passed, it might invite an "opinion" by the court to clarify the issue. If you think the Supreme Court Justices are all good ole boy hunters that believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms, you are the nutjob. There are some on there who would be more than happy to spout their "well regulated militia" misconceptions into making sure the National Guard will never be disarmed and making the 2nd Amendment a collective right for the National Guard. We have to pick and chose our Supreme Court battles or we do literally risk losing everything. I know you chose not to think long term and would rather call me a nutjob, but you might want to think it over some.
bamawrx
Member
io333,
Well at least your consistent. The 2A along with the other ammendments delineates the authority and scope of the Federal gov and leaves the rest to the States. The issue of States rights has more to do with the bastardization of the commerce clause, which is currently under review by SCOTUS. (Fingers crossed but not holding breath) The original intent of the 2A, which is supported by the recent DOJ scholarship, is that the 2A is an individual right. As such, no governing body has the authority to regulate the private ownership of firearms. Do you think the States have the power under the Constitution to regulate free speach to say only whites? I understand that we lack incorporation, but that doesn't mean the God given rights don't exist.
My view is that we are temporarily experiencing a violation of our Constitutional rights. This violation is being suffered without armed revolt as most Americans remain optimistic that the wrongs will be "righted". As judicial tyranny increasingly devalues the power of the vote, we move closer to a period where more and more people will no longer be optimistic about a positive natural outcome. This is the dangerous state in which I feel we find ourselves today.
If the congress can throw us a bone or three, and the Senate stop the unconstitutional filibustering of judicial nominees, we may increase the optimism of the oppressed and delay or prevent the need for violent revolt. My $.02
Well at least your consistent. The 2A along with the other ammendments delineates the authority and scope of the Federal gov and leaves the rest to the States. The issue of States rights has more to do with the bastardization of the commerce clause, which is currently under review by SCOTUS. (Fingers crossed but not holding breath) The original intent of the 2A, which is supported by the recent DOJ scholarship, is that the 2A is an individual right. As such, no governing body has the authority to regulate the private ownership of firearms. Do you think the States have the power under the Constitution to regulate free speach to say only whites? I understand that we lack incorporation, but that doesn't mean the God given rights don't exist.
My view is that we are temporarily experiencing a violation of our Constitutional rights. This violation is being suffered without armed revolt as most Americans remain optimistic that the wrongs will be "righted". As judicial tyranny increasingly devalues the power of the vote, we move closer to a period where more and more people will no longer be optimistic about a positive natural outcome. This is the dangerous state in which I feel we find ourselves today.
If the congress can throw us a bone or three, and the Senate stop the unconstitutional filibustering of judicial nominees, we may increase the optimism of the oppressed and delay or prevent the need for violent revolt. My $.02
orangeninja
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,117
I've not made up my mind on this because I simply don't have enough info yet.
One thing that makes me lean pro on this is GOA's endorsement. In the years that I've followed Larry Pratt I've never seen him on the wrong side of a gun issue. If the bill does what GOA says then I can see the positives of it. For instance, if a Vermonter can carry concealed anywhere in the other 49 states with no risk of legal problems then that would create a kind of envy amongst those residents in other states. Say, if he can pack heat in where a resident can't (or has a really stringent/expensive CCW hurtles) then folks in that state will scream to allow them to carry as easily. Envy is a strong force.
Does anyone here have a link to the full text of the Bill?
One thing that makes me lean pro on this is GOA's endorsement. In the years that I've followed Larry Pratt I've never seen him on the wrong side of a gun issue. If the bill does what GOA says then I can see the positives of it. For instance, if a Vermonter can carry concealed anywhere in the other 49 states with no risk of legal problems then that would create a kind of envy amongst those residents in other states. Say, if he can pack heat in where a resident can't (or has a really stringent/expensive CCW hurtles) then folks in that state will scream to allow them to carry as easily. Envy is a strong force.
Does anyone here have a link to the full text of the Bill?
Nathaniel Firethorn
Member
With what's going on in Philly now, this sounds like some extra protection.
- pdmoderator
- pdmoderator
dirtbos
Member
non-resident permit?
Quote:
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
Oops, I take that back. Illinois has no CCW at all, so bad example. Substitute the word CALIFORNIA for ILLINOIS.
io333 ?
Help me through this. Does the language not refer to a CCW holder that is licensed by his home state? I am not arguing, just hoping that you are correct. I was born in LA County and am to committed financially to move. If you are correct, I am all for this bill and so should all of those who are affected by left wing infested local governments like I am.
Quote:
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
Oops, I take that back. Illinois has no CCW at all, so bad example. Substitute the word CALIFORNIA for ILLINOIS.
io333 ?
Help me through this. Does the language not refer to a CCW holder that is licensed by his home state? I am not arguing, just hoping that you are correct. I was born in LA County and am to committed financially to move. If you are correct, I am all for this bill and so should all of those who are affected by left wing infested local governments like I am.
Big Mike
Member
At this point, has there been any discussion on the actual bill in congress?
71Commander
Member
Not yet. It takes some time. It was just introduces last Thursday (3-10).
Gray Peterson
Member
The text has already been posted a few times in the thread.
I wrote up this little number on Packing.org, and I'm going to repost it here, the reasons why some people are opposing this bill are without merit:
This issue has been beat to death before in threads here, in THR, in TFL. The bigger arguments are:
1. The federal government has no authority to mandate CCW reciprocity. False. Article 4, Section 1 is clear that Congress does in fact have the absolute right to mandate CCW reciprocity (Acts and Records). In fact, it could be colorably argued that CHL permits should be recognized by every state by the first part of Article 4, Section 1, but thus far, it would seem that states are generally not complying with those provisions. Sure, Florida and other states are good at striking out for reciprocity, but in reality, only states that have pure recognition statutes are the only ones following Article 4, Section 1.
2. The government is mandating some sort of national CCW permit. This is utterly false and without merit. The SAFE Act, nor even the Stearns bill which is in fact unconstitutional (due to it's establishment of "national standards" on carrying in states with no concealed carry law), mandates any sort of "national permit" issued by the federal government. No registration, no licensing. Heck, if you happen to be a lucky enough person to live in Alaska or Vermont, you get to carry without needing to acquire a permit at all (The "Acts" part of the A4S1 covers here, records covers those with permits).
3. The government could ban CCW reciprocity down the line. The problem with that argument is: They can do it right now. Tommorow, they could re-enact that prohibition I talked about earlier with the Gun Control Act of 1968. The gun banners don't need the SAFE Act to justify being a bunch of gun banning, gun grabbing freaks. They're not going to say "Well, since SAFE act passes, we now can justify that "power" to take it away". Newsflash, folks, SAFE Act will not in any way change the fact that that anti-gunners want to ban reciprocity and CCW in general, and they believe that they have that power, right now. They just need a Congress and a President to back up that belief.
4. For the reasons above, we should go on the offensive and try to do everything possible to pass the SAFE Act. The more on the offensive we are, pulling back restrictions, the more the anti-gunners will have to WORK HARDER to pass their anti-gun thuggery in Congress in the future. Being a bunch of scaredy cats hiding in a corner begging for mercy from anti-gun thugs like the Brady Bunch doesn't work any more than a guy who's holding a knife to your throat and demanding your wallet: You can give them what they want (No SAFE act passage) and they can still slit your throat (ban on CCW reciprocity nationwide).
I wrote up this little number on Packing.org, and I'm going to repost it here, the reasons why some people are opposing this bill are without merit:
This issue has been beat to death before in threads here, in THR, in TFL. The bigger arguments are:
1. The federal government has no authority to mandate CCW reciprocity. False. Article 4, Section 1 is clear that Congress does in fact have the absolute right to mandate CCW reciprocity (Acts and Records). In fact, it could be colorably argued that CHL permits should be recognized by every state by the first part of Article 4, Section 1, but thus far, it would seem that states are generally not complying with those provisions. Sure, Florida and other states are good at striking out for reciprocity, but in reality, only states that have pure recognition statutes are the only ones following Article 4, Section 1.
2. The government is mandating some sort of national CCW permit. This is utterly false and without merit. The SAFE Act, nor even the Stearns bill which is in fact unconstitutional (due to it's establishment of "national standards" on carrying in states with no concealed carry law), mandates any sort of "national permit" issued by the federal government. No registration, no licensing. Heck, if you happen to be a lucky enough person to live in Alaska or Vermont, you get to carry without needing to acquire a permit at all (The "Acts" part of the A4S1 covers here, records covers those with permits).
3. The government could ban CCW reciprocity down the line. The problem with that argument is: They can do it right now. Tommorow, they could re-enact that prohibition I talked about earlier with the Gun Control Act of 1968. The gun banners don't need the SAFE Act to justify being a bunch of gun banning, gun grabbing freaks. They're not going to say "Well, since SAFE act passes, we now can justify that "power" to take it away". Newsflash, folks, SAFE Act will not in any way change the fact that that anti-gunners want to ban reciprocity and CCW in general, and they believe that they have that power, right now. They just need a Congress and a President to back up that belief.
4. For the reasons above, we should go on the offensive and try to do everything possible to pass the SAFE Act. The more on the offensive we are, pulling back restrictions, the more the anti-gunners will have to WORK HARDER to pass their anti-gun thuggery in Congress in the future. Being a bunch of scaredy cats hiding in a corner begging for mercy from anti-gun thugs like the Brady Bunch doesn't work any more than a guy who's holding a knife to your throat and demanding your wallet: You can give them what they want (No SAFE act passage) and they can still slit your throat (ban on CCW reciprocity nationwide).
Gray Peterson
Member
I think GOA's endorsement would give credence to that assessment. The bill actually restores nationwide carry without a license to those who happen to be residents of state that respect RKBA fully.
RegBarc
Member
I forget who actually made the asinine comment about state soviergnty, however, all 50 states are soverign in their laws from each other so long as their laws obey the Supreme Law of the Land.
Any 1st year law school professor will tell you that, no matter how liberal they are. Additionally, since our laws are rooted in English Common Law, we see a difference in every state because each state picked and chose the intensity of each law (based on the needs of the citizens of that state).
Any 1st year law school professor will tell you that, no matter how liberal they are. Additionally, since our laws are rooted in English Common Law, we see a difference in every state because each state picked and chose the intensity of each law (based on the needs of the citizens of that state).
Gray Peterson
Member
And this bill follows along with that, again, Article 4, Section 1.
Gray Peterson
Member
A part of this misunderstanding over HR1243 has to do with a few things:
1. That this is a national CCW permit. That is not the case.
2. That this state will enforce "national standards". This is a misunderstanding from the other bill, what's commonly known as the Stearns bill. Do a search on Thomas for the 107th Congress, for HR382. If you read the Stearns bill and the SAFE Act, SAFE is clearly superior in that it doesn't try to enforce "no carry zones" in states that do not have an issuance policy at all (including Vermont), and due to it's wording, it's very unfriendly to residents of states that will do away with their entire permitting scheme.
3. States do not have "rights". They have powers. And clearly from the wording and meaning of Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution, the US Congress has the right to enact the SAFE Act, just as much as they have the right to enact 18USC926A, which protects your right to be exempt from state laws on firearms if you're transporting them across a state, as long as you're legal in your state of origin and destination (thus, "Acts" per A4S1 of the USC).
4. As I've stated before, the anti-gunners in Congress do think they can ban CCW reciprocity now. They certainly don't need the SAFE Act as a "precedent" for anything. Remember that before the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, it was nearly impossible to transport across state lines, a firearm. Now it's legal regardless of what New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California thinks. SAFE Act expands upon that in terms of enforcing A4S1. You go to NYC, and if you possess a license to carry a concealed firearm, or you're a resident of a state that allows you to carry concealed without a permit (Alaska and Vermont), you are COVERED. NYPD certainly could arrest you, but can you imagine the lawsuits that will occur if they ignore SAFE? And before you start on the "They've been arresting people at airports" crap, remember that 926A requires you transport it IN YOUR TRUNK. Once you take it out, state laws apply.
1. That this is a national CCW permit. That is not the case.
2. That this state will enforce "national standards". This is a misunderstanding from the other bill, what's commonly known as the Stearns bill. Do a search on Thomas for the 107th Congress, for HR382. If you read the Stearns bill and the SAFE Act, SAFE is clearly superior in that it doesn't try to enforce "no carry zones" in states that do not have an issuance policy at all (including Vermont), and due to it's wording, it's very unfriendly to residents of states that will do away with their entire permitting scheme.
3. States do not have "rights". They have powers. And clearly from the wording and meaning of Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution, the US Congress has the right to enact the SAFE Act, just as much as they have the right to enact 18USC926A, which protects your right to be exempt from state laws on firearms if you're transporting them across a state, as long as you're legal in your state of origin and destination (thus, "Acts" per A4S1 of the USC).
4. As I've stated before, the anti-gunners in Congress do think they can ban CCW reciprocity now. They certainly don't need the SAFE Act as a "precedent" for anything. Remember that before the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, it was nearly impossible to transport across state lines, a firearm. Now it's legal regardless of what New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California thinks. SAFE Act expands upon that in terms of enforcing A4S1. You go to NYC, and if you possess a license to carry a concealed firearm, or you're a resident of a state that allows you to carry concealed without a permit (Alaska and Vermont), you are COVERED. NYPD certainly could arrest you, but can you imagine the lawsuits that will occur if they ignore SAFE? And before you start on the "They've been arresting people at airports" crap, remember that 926A requires you transport it IN YOUR TRUNK. Once you take it out, state laws apply.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked