House Panel clears National Carry

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


How is it an impedment on state rights if all states must obey the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution?
.

 

[Psa1m144]

This is a good bill, which will die because nobody is taking the time to read it. We are our own worst enemies when it comes to this.

All the bill does is require the states to recognize each other's CHLs alla driver's licenses.

Everything else people are posting is conspiracy theory nonsense.

++1

 

[JustinL]

I'm a little confused here: if one state must recognize the driver's license of another, why can they arbitrarily decide to recognize a concealed carry permit?

Any lawyers here?

 

[Mike1234567]

This is an impediment of States' Rights because it's "Federal control" over States' Rights.

 

[RatDrall]

^^^ Untrue... this is a Trojan Horse. The Federal Government is imposing its control over States' power. It's their "foot in the door".

So the federal gov't doesn't already have control over states' power to regulate themselves?

Again, there was a war fought over this, and the Federal Government won. States do NOT have the right to make all of their own rules. Ask the 250,000 or so dead Southerners who were killed because they thought they didn't have to do what they were told.

What most of you guys are afraid of (the evil federal government taking control over the States) already took place long before any of us were born. Short of disbanding of the Federal Government, most of us will not get the freedom we want unless it comes in the form of Federal laws that preserve freedoms from out of control State governments who choose to oppress their citizens as well as travelers from other States.

 

[Birch Knoll]

I'm a little confused here: if one state must recognize the driver's license of another, why can they arbitrarily decide to recognize a concealed carry permit?

You went wrong when you assumed that States "must" recognize each other's driver's licenses. They don't have to. They have agreed amongst themselves to do so.

 

[Birch Knoll]

This is an impediment of States' Rights because it's "Federal control" over States' Rights.

Sometimes I wonder if people understand what is meant by State's Rights. It does not mean that the States can abridge the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution. The Federal government can make and enforce laws which require the States to respect civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. Not that it very often bothers to do so. Which makes it all the more ironic when pro-gun people oppose a rare Federal attempt to protect their gun rights from being limited by the States.

 

[tyeo098]

So the states have a right to infringe upon our rights? (NY, CA, IL)

This is where the feds step in and fix it.

READ THE BILL

If you did not read the bill, and post in this thread bleeding conspiracy, I fear for us Americans.

Here, heres a link to make it easier for you:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text

It takes seriously, five minutes to read.

 

[bill in IN]

Gee, you'd almost forget that there was a lot of hub-bub a while back about reciprocity on those pesky marriage licenses issued to gays by some states. But of course, marriage which isn't a Constitutionally enumerated right should trump the 2nd Amendment? I believe that this is one of those- full faith and credit things.... not to mention your drivers license.

 

[Birch Knoll]

I'm fine with full faith and credit for same-sex marriages. I agree with Glenn Reynolds: "I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons."

 

[Mike1234567]

I read the Bill and, indeed, it is pretty... superficially. The bottom line is why would we allow the Federal Govt to impose control over States' Rights? I'm not saying it hasn't been necessary in the past for other reasons. My concern is that I haven't trusted the Federal Govt for a long time now so why should I trust it with my 2A rights?

 

[tyeo098]

My concern is that I haven't trusted the Federal Govt for a long time now so why should I trust it with my 2A rights?

Then don't leave your state. You will never see any part of this bill.
You can ccw in your state just like your state wants you to.

Oh, and if you happen to want to go to (or have a second home in) upstate New York, you can carry there now too.

 

[Birch Knoll]

The bottom line is why would we allow the Federal Govt to impose control over States' Rights?

The States do not have a right to abridge your rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.

I'm not saying it hasn't been necessary in the past for other reasons.

The you already know the answer. When states infringed voting rights with poll taxes and literacy tests, was that a matter of States Rights? Or was it a matter of the states infringing on the civil rights of its people?

 

[TexasRifleman]

The bottom line is why would we allow the Federal Govt to impose control over States' Rights?

It's right in the bill, and on pretty solid legal ground.

The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

[razorback2003]

Are the US territories covered under this bill? Is Puerto Rico considered a 'political subdivision' or is Puerto Rico, Guam, and US VI excluded from this bill. It would be nice to be able to legally conceal a handgun in PR without having to get a license from the police there.

 

[beatledog7]

You went wrong when you assumed that States "must" recognize each other's driver's licenses. They don't have to. They have agreed amongst themselves to do so.

This is correct. States legislators across the country figured out early on that not recognizing other states' driving licenses would severely curtail drivers from other states spending money in their state. In other words, it would be dumb.

But there's no Federal law forcing them to do this, nor can there be without violating the Constitution.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Congress does indeed have that power, but this bill does no such thing. It does not remove one infringement on the RKBA. It does, in fact, INCORPORATE all the existing state infringements on carry and bury them under a layer of Federal law.

This bill, if passed into law, will become de facto recognition of and acceptance by the Federal government of all those unconstitutional carry permit laws in most of the several states. How on Earth can that be considered a removal of any infringement(s) on our RKBA?

All this bill will do is make our quest to unfetter our RKBA more difficult. Think about this long and hard before you jump onto this band wagon that'll take you into Federal gun control hell.

As far as carrying from state to state, we're getting there judicially, step by step, with solid 2nd and 14th Amendment rulings.

If you allow Congress to pass this bill, all you will be doing is exchanging a small cage for a bigger one - made out of much bigger bars! Giving an animal a bigger cage is not giving it freedom. Are you not something more than an animal? You all do have the smarts to set your self free. There is no sense in making it more difficult than it is right now!

Woody

 

[beatledog7]

The Cowboy has it exactly right. It is simply not within the Feds' or the States' authority to have any say on RKBA. The Constitution says that right shall not be infringed. Issuing any kind of regulation regarding RKBA is therefore a Constitutional violation.

Now, if the Federal gov't decided to tell the states, "Hey there, States. Your RKBA restrictions are illegal under the US Constitution, and therefore null and void. Don't try to pass any other similar laws in the future unless you secede from this union first," that would be legal because it would simply be recognition that States can't legally violate 2A either.

But don't hold your breath for that.

 

[Birch Knoll]

The Cowboy has it exactly right. It is simply not within the Feds' or the States' authority to have any say on RKBA. The Constitution says that right shall not be infringed. Issuing any kind of regulation regarding RKBA is therefore a Constitutional violation.

Sounds great, but it just ain't so. "Shall not be infringed" is not the same as "cannot be subject to any regulation at all". The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to free speech, or the right to vote, are subject to reasonable regulation. You aren't free to slander or incite riot, and you must qualify and register before you can vote. Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms is not entirely free of regulation. Prisoners have no right to keep and bear arms, and neither do felons. A permit system is not ipso facto infringment, any more than voter registration is infringement.

 

[beatledog7]

ttolhurst,

If some regulation is ok as long as it doesn't reach the level of infringement, then how do you know when it has reached that level? Who decides? Once you head down the "reasonable regulation" road, can you get Government to see any level of regulation as too much?

Slander is illegal because it violates the rights of the slandered. At that point it is no longer speech but theft of character or even assault. Inciting a riot, like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is not speech either; it is endangerment.

Voter registration is designed to make sure a person is a legal resident of the district in which she reports to vote, to ensure she is at least 18, and to ensure she doesn't vote twice. It does not infringe on voting rights as defined by Federal law; it merely ensures that the law is followed.

Convicted felons lose a lot of their former rights. Allowing them to KBA is seen as posing an unreasonable risk to others. They had the opportunity to learn that if convicted for what they chose to do, loss of RKBA would result, so in effect they have voluntarily abdicated RKBA.

Permits of many kinds are required when the thing being permitted is normally not allowed because doing it curtails the rights of others or causes inconvenience to others. Examples are building, demonstration, and parade permits.

How does controlling CCW by permit fall into that category?

 

[Birch Knoll]

If some regulation is ok as long as it doesn't reach the level of infringement, then how do you know when it has reached that level? Who decides? Once you head down the "reasonable regulation" road, can you get Government to see any level of regulation as too much?

Who usually decides? The courts, when a controversy is brought before them. Yes, the natural tendency of all governments is to encumber and control. Such is life.

Voter registration is designed to make sure a person is a legal resident of the district in which she reports to vote, to ensure she is at least 18, and to ensure she doesn't vote twice. It does not infringe on voting rights as defined by Federal law; it merely ensures that the law is followed.

And merely requiring an easily-obtainable permit does not infringe on the right to carry a weapon; it merely ensures that the individual is at least 18, and is not a person prohibited from possessing or carrying a weapon. It's exactly comparable, so long as the permit is easily and universally obtainable, barring reasonable disqualifying factors, such as a criminal record or mental illness.

 

[Mike1234567]

I'm sure the Government could argue that allowing any nonmilitary/non-law-enforcement citizens to own firearms is infringement on the safety of others who do not. As others have stated/asked... Where will "regulation" stop?

 

[Prince Yamato]

Any bill can be used as a Trojan horse. "We" used a credit-card reform bill to get carry in national parks. I understand folks' desire to keep a careful watch over the current president's pen. I think most people on this board agree with that. What kills me is that here before us is a chance to get what we want, is spelled out in clear English, no hidden meaning, and has the blessing of the NRA- and folks still complain that it's not good enough. The chance to ccw across the country is before us, yet a segment of the population would rather hole up in their state and pout. This is far better than nothing folks. It's a good bill.

 

[Birch Knoll]

I'm sure the Government could argue that allowing any nonmilitary/non-law-enforcement citizens to own firearms is infringement on the safety of others who do not.

That is the argument that anti-gunners have used for decades, and they've had some pretty good success with it over the years, at least in places. However, that argument was took a dagger to the heart with Heller and McDonald.

Where will "regulation" stop?

Probably not as soon as you or I would like. But wrongly believing that any and all regulation is unconstitutional won't help.

 

[beatledog7]

The thing about RKBA is the founding fathers saw fit to give it specific mention in the Constitution as a DO NOT MESS WITH freedom. They placed no bounds on its free exercise, not because they knew people needed guns to put meat on the table or fend off foreign soldiers, but because they knew that arms are the last line of defense against out-of-control government. The Constitution was written and ratified for that express purpose -- to ensure government remained under the control of the People.

Art VI Section 2 says the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State notwithstanding." What can those words mean except that whatever is in the Constitution trumps everything else? States can certainly make their own laws, but only if they do not contradict the Constitution.

Anti-gunners want us to think that reasonable regulation regarding firearms is not only Constitutional but right and reasonable, and they argue that it must be so because the Federal government has the authority to control anything it wants to control. Every time we strike any sort of compromise on RKBA, we weaken it directly and lay the groundwork for its further weakening.

RKBA was intended to be inviolable. My quick study of the Bill of Rights reveals only a few similarly protected Constitutionally defined freedoms -- those having no "but" or "unless" type clauses attached. Amendments VI, VII, and VIII guarantee speedy and impartial trial, prohibit excessive bail, and forbid cruel and unusual punishments. They define these rights without caveat or restriction; they create no loopholes.

If the founding fathers meant to allow for RKBA to be "reasonably" regulated, why would they intentionally give RKBA the same special station as those rights?