House Panel clears National Carry

[beatledog7]

If you're in favor of this bill, how would you feel about Congress working on a bill that "expands" your right to freely assemble, or speak your mind, or practice your preferred religion?

 

[Birch Knoll]

If you're in favor of this bill, how would you feel about Congress working on a bill that "expands" your right to freely assemble, or speak your mind, or practice your preferred religion?

Considering that each of those rights have at one time or another been subject to various abusive limitations, I think I might welcome such a measure.

 

[Bubba613]

Considering that each of those rights have at one time or another been subject to various abusive limitations, I think I might welcome such a measure.

Ditto.
It is amazing that a bill to expand the right to carry is opposed by people who are supposed to be in favor of that exact same thing. The arguments against it are ludicrous and amount to government paranoia.

 

[beatledog7]

My point here is simple, but you guys are missing it. We don't need a new law to fix legislative abuse of the Constitution. We need to strip away the old abusive laws and let the Constitution stand on its own. Period.

 

[Birch Knoll]

My point here is simple, but you guys are missing it. We don't need a new law to fix legislative abuse of the Constitution. We need to strip away the old abusive laws and let the Constitution stand on its own. Period.

I'm not missing it. I completely understand you, and I agree that restrictive laws should be repealed. However, I do not believe that the good must be the enemy of the great; good bills like HR822 which explicitly recognize and promote gun rights shouldn't be rejected because they do not achieve Constitutional nirvana.

 

[Bubba613]

However, I do not believe that the good must be the enemy of the great; good bills like HR822 which explicitly recognize and promote gun rights shouldn't be rejected because they do not achieve Constitutional nirvana.

What he said.

And I dont think every restriction is unconstitutional. That's a myth.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It's sad how some here can't tell the difference between confounding a problem and solving a problem even when presented with facts.

And I dont think every restriction is unconstitutional. That's a myth.

First you say it then label your thought a myth. Which is it?

Would you list a few infringements to the RKBA you believe to be Constitutional? That would certainly help us resolve the myth into a viable and logical comprehension.

Woody

 

[beatledog7]

I do not believe that the good must be the enemy of the great; good bills like HR822 which explicitly recognize and promote gun rights shouldn't be rejected because they do not achieve Constitutional nirvana.

Nirvana? When did adherence to and enforcement of the fundamental law of the land take on the status of Nirvana?

And I dont think every restriction is unconstitutional. That's a myth.

Read the Second Amendment aloud. Listen to what it says. Then look up the word "infringe."

How can words that say it is forbidden to restrict, impair, encroach upon, break, fail to observe," etc. (that's what infringe means) our RKBA really mean that some "restriction, impairment, encroachment upon, breaking, failure to observe," etc. is ok. Where do you find that in the words of the 2A? Do you realize that saying some 2A restrictions are ok is the same as saying the entire 2A is null and void?

If you're willing to give a little ground, be prepared to lose a lot.

I'm done trying to shine a light on this. Enjoy your new law.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Would you list a few infringements to the RKBA you believe to be Constitutional?

Well, time and place restrictions required to maintain security in sensitive areas come to mind. For example, visitors to a prison could be required to disarm or be denied entry. You'll go a looooong way before you find a judge who'll consider that unconstitutional.

 

[Birch Knoll]

I'm done trying to shine a light on this. Enjoy your new law.

Heh. You think this is going to become law? I think that's rather unlikely. This bill has bigger, badder enemies than pro-RKBA fundamentalists. Every anti-gunner to ever come down the pike wants this bill dead, dead, dead.

Chuck Schumer appreciates your support.

 

[Bubba613]

First you say it then label your thought a myth. Which is it?

Would you list a few infringements to the RKBA you believe to be Constitutional? That would certainly help us resolve the myth into a viable and logical comprehension.

The idea that every infringement is unconstitutional is a myth. There are no absolute rights, nor was the 2A ever interpreted to be that way.
What are Constitutional limits to RKBA?
Age limits
Residence status limits
Criminal limits
Need limits
Type of weapon limits.
Virtually anything short of a complete ban.

Note that just because something is bad policy does not make is unconstitutional. They are not identitical.

 

[ErikO]

Ok, here's the unabridged body of the bill:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:


(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.


(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


(3) 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.


(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.


(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.


(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.


(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.


(9) 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.


(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.


SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
1(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:


‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--


‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or


‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.


‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.


(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:


‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.


(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

What part is not clear? It is noted in Sec 3(d) that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms".

 

[Trip20]

Bubba613 -- if you don't mind, what is your state of residence?

 

[Bubba613]

TN
Why?

 

[Trip20]

Just curiosity really. I was curious as to the state of residence for the bill's proponents; likewise for the bill's opponents.

 

[ErikO]

MO here, but then again it says that to the left as well.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Oregon here, and a handful of western and midwestern states recognize my CCW.

Thanks for the hospitality neighbors.

However Oregon recognizes NO other state's CCW. Kindly disarm yourselves at the state line if you haven't submitted for our personal card.

The system works.... Really.

Now bow to me my disarmed subjects... BOW I SAY!!!!!! (sorry , not enough sleep or coffee... the "sillys" slipping out)

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Then when they all start complaining that there is no equity in the state laws we'll tell them that since we took care of that pesky interstate carry problem but they continue to complain we will now require Federal Licensing so that all requirements are equal across all states.

State Licensing*

What exactly is wrong with this bill? I went through the comments and read the bill myself, nothing about it is restrictive and it is on the premise of expanding our right, regaining ground we lost awhile ago. If the internet was around back then, is this how people would be acting about the 14th amendment?

 

[hugh damright]

What exactly is wrong with this bill?

In my view, the primary thing wrong with it is that it declares that the interstate commerce power creates federal jurisdiction over CCW ... I think it's given that the federal government will, in time, use their jurisdiction over CCW to our detriment ... and besides, I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim that CCW is an interstate commerce issue.

If the internet was around back then, is this how people would be acting about the 14th amendment?

Hardly ... opposition to HR822 is nothing compared to the opposition to the 14th Amendment.

 

[Bubba613]

In my view, the primary thing wrong with it is that it declares that the interstate commerce power creates federal jurisdiction over CCW

You need to go back and read the text of the bill, Section 3. The source of authority is the 14thA, not the Commerce Clause.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Actually, it invokes the 2nd and 14th Amendments, the right of free travel, and throws in the Commerce Clause for good measure. Belt and suspenders, I think.

 

[hugh damright]

The source of authority is the 14thA, not the Commerce Clause.

"(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State ... harms interstate commerce."

Actually, it invokes the 2nd and 14th Amendments, the right of free travel, and throws in the Commerce Clause for good measure. Belt and suspenders, I think.

And it also says that CCW reduces crime, which appears to mean that it would be for the "general welfare". It appears to me that the intent is to stretch some part of the US Constitution to mean something it's never meant before, because the US Constitution is in their way. I don't think of "belt and suspenders", I think of "by hook or by crook" or "the end justifies the means".

 

[Birch Knoll]

I'm not a fan of using the Commerce Clause in this way either, but this is hardly new ground. The Commerce Clause is well-established (too well, for my taste) authority for Federal law, with at least 60 years of broad and solid support by the courts behind it. The 2nd Amendment, applied to the States via the 14th Amendment, just had its first birthday back in June. I can understand why the authors of the bill would want to include a Commerce Clause invocation.

Besides, the irony is delicious. The Commerce Clause is the basis for pretty much all Federal gun control law. It's about time that it was used to expand, rather than diminish, our gun rights.

 

[hugh damright]

I'm not a fan of using the Commerce Clause in this way either, but this is hardly new ground.

Isn't it new ground for "our side"? I think the RKBA crowd has previously been against this abuse of the commerce clause. And it's new ground to declare that the commerce clause creates federal jurisdiction over CCW.

The Commerce Clause is well-established (too well, for my taste) authority for Federal law, with at least 60 years of broad and solid support by the courts behind it.

I am not aware that the SCOTUS has said that the interstate commerce power includes gun control powers, but rather I think that the Congress passes gun laws saying that it only applies to guns that impact interstate commerce ... I think this could be challenged, but if both the antigun and progun forces agree that the interstate commerce power includes gun control powers, then I don't see where the challenge is going to come from.

 

[Birch Knoll]

That's why the primary claim of jurisdiction is the newly-minted 2A-incorporated-via-14A, with the tried-and-true Commerce Clause as backup. Should the Commerce power ever be pared back to something reasonable, HR822 still stands on 2A/14A grounds.