How do we get a National Right to Carry Law enacted?

[Frank Ettin]

...How do you feel this idea will be affected by the 10th Amendment, which reserves all powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government to the individual states?

As I see it, this speaks directly to our two-layer government system, wherein some powers are strictly within the purview of the Federal government, and others are strictly within the purview of state governments....

In some ways that's the nub of the dissension. Of course the gun control proponents who might not think any private citizen should be carrying a gun in public are opposed to a national right to carry. But perhaps more critical is the schism in the RKBA camp.

Many supporters of the Second Amendment are also strict constructionists on constitutional matters and generally oppose expansion of federal power. Various national right to carry proposals are viewed as an erosion of state sovereignty as recognized and protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Those proposals also are viewed as requiring further stretching of the Commerce Clause in order to find congressional authority for the legislation. And thus national right to carry legislation is seen by some ardent Second Amendment advocates as offending their core values.

This sort of tension between federal authority and state sovereignty has been an issue for us since the days of the Articles of Confederation.

 

[danez71]

If the subject here was "establishing federal mandatory standards for carrying a gun" I'd be completely in agreement, but seeing as no such thing has been proposed, the loudest shouted opposition is simply baffling.

And I would agree too Sam.

^^^ Exactly

I am one who wants LESS of a Federal government in every aspect of our lives. If 85% of it went away tomorrow, it wouldn't be too soon...

And I agree with that too... especially as I get older that sentiment grows inside me.

But its VERY apparent that people are replying out of ignorance to what has been graciously provided by Frank; a link to a summary and full text of the actual Bills proposed.

I read every summary of each of those Bills and at least some of the text of each Bill proposed.

NOT A SINGLE ONE IS PROPOSING GIVING THE FEDS ANY MORE POWER IN ANY WAY.

As Sam stated, they basically say that all states must honor all of the other states' permit.The person must follow the States' laws that they are present in and they have to have a valid CCP and a valid Govt issued picture ID. That's it !!!


Any reply that alludes that it does is the result of laziness for not reading them and FUDD.


Personally I prefer a true national right to carry in some method without a permit but we need to un-cork the genie.

We've lost rights incrementally. If we uncorked the genie, it would be a HUGE incremental step back to regaining them.


If looked at optimistically, we are 1/2 way there. It would and has passed the House. We just need to get it pass the Senate.


Someone said something like that they can carry in 30 states so it's not important to them to have national carry.

Well, what they're really saying is that they're fine with 40% of their 2A Rights being taken away.

I'm not.

Please have some respect and decency for those that want all of their rights and stay out of our way by not posting off topic and FUDD.

That's the least that can been done. If you want to contribute to the thread, at least read and educate yourself - at least read the material handed to you.

(The above is not all directed toward oneounceload. It's a general statement to all. Oneounceload contributes greatly in other areas.)

 

[X-Rap]

As you've pointed out, the bills submitted that have now additional federal powers or regulation have failed many times. Don't you have to ask yourself why?

 

[danez71]

As you've pointed out, the bills submitted that have now additional federal powers or regulation have failed many times. Don't you have to ask yourself why?

Another example of not reading what handed to you.

I've answered that twice now.

It's passed the House more than once and doesn't make it pass the Sentate.

Vote more like minded people into the Senate.

There is not enough like minded people in the Senate. That's why.

 

[shootniron]

danez71...if the feds say the states must honor honor all other state's permits...they may decide to come back and say that states cannot honor all states permits, and then place fed guidelines on what to accept or not accept.

Can you NOT understand the concept of ...NOT STARTING DOWN THIS ROAD?

When has the federal government ever gotten involved in anything, that it did not ultimately take over.

It appears that you are operating out of ignorance...as much as anyone else on this thread.

 

[danez71]

danez71...if the feds say the states must honor honor all other state's permits...they may decide to come back and say that states cannot honor all states permits, and then place fed guidelines on what to accept or not accept.

Can you NOT understand the concept of ...NOT STARTING DOWN THIS ROAD?

It appears that you are operating out of ignorance...as much as anyone else on this thread.

Again... comments stemming from Fudd.

By that logic women never should have asked to be able to vote in every state because the off chance the Feds MIGHT take that away. (There were yrs that only some some states allowed it)

And you accuse me of operating out of ignorance? Please.....

If they can say no one honors permits then... they can do it now.

But they haven't. They never indicated they would or might.


I'm sorry but I feel that our Rights are worth fighting for. I'm not going to cower and hide for fear of what more Rights they MIGHT take away.

YMMV

 

[gc70]

+1; the LAST thing we need is the Fed involved. The regs of NJ, NY, MD, DC and similar places will become the standard by which ALL gun laws will be made - simply put, no thanks

To be honest, I don't even really understand what this claim means. The proposed laws so far say that the credentials granted by any state must be recognized by all states.

Nothing in any of these has anything whatsoever to do with establishing federal standards or restrictions or licenses or really "gun laws" of any kind.

So why are we seeing so many seemingly completely blind and deaf resistance arguments, disconnected from any of the actual proposals floated to accomplish this goal?

If the subject here was "establishing federal mandatory standards for carrying a gun" I'd be completely in agreement, but seeing as no such thing has been proposed, the loudest shouted opposition is simply baffling.

The objection regarding potential federal minimum standards is not in the proposed legislation, but the "need" for minimum standards does figure prominently in the arguments made by senior legislators opposed to national reciprocity.

Senator Feinstein: "California sets a high bar for those who wish to obtain a concealed weapon permit. {snip} I oppose any legislation that would interfere with California’s ability to enforce these standards."

Senator Schumer: "“This bill is a menace to New York and would allow potentially dangerous people from other states to carry concealed weapons in our grocery stores, movie theaters and stadiums, without even notifying the police. {snip} It is a nightmare for our law enforcement officers and the community, and I will fight this legislation tooth and nail."

Any discussion of national reciprocity should not only consider the points in favor of proposed legislation, but also the core arguments presented by our opponents.

 

[BSA1]

danez71,

Since you choose to single me out I will respond to your comments.

With no respect intended.....

THR is about the exchange of ideas. It is unfortunate you don’t respect mine.

We get it. You're opposed. So this thread isn't for you. If you want to talk about removing silencer restrictions and the $200 tax stamp... show a bit of respect and start your own thread instead of whoring up this one. We don't need to give up power to the Feds and saying we do is FUDD talk.

I don’t understand your use of the word “whoring” other than it is intended as a insult along with your “no respect intended” comment.

intr.v. whored, whor·ing, whores
1. To associate or have sexual relations with prostitutes or a prostitute.
2. To accept payment in exchange for sexual relations.
3. To compromise one's principles for personal gain.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whoring

A National Right to Carry Law is about giving the Federal Government power to regulate something they currently have no authority in. Since conceal carry laws vary so much from State to State some type of regulations will be necessary. I don’t trust the Federal Government not to expand the power into this area if such a law was passed and depending on whom is the President and in Congress amend the law for the worse such as into a gun control law when it becomes convenient. Just as Obama and the Democrats rammed through Obamacare when they had control of Congress what will stop them from amending a national carry bill to suit their wants?

Remember the story about letting the nose of the camel in the tent? I think a National Right to Carry law is a terrible idea and will speak out against it in the manner the Moderators approve.

 

[danez71]

The objection regarding potential federal minimum standards is not in the proposed legislation, but the "need" for minimum standards does figure prominently in the arguments made by senior legislators opposed to national reciprocity.





Any discussion of national reciprocity should not only consider the points in favor of proposed legislation, but also the core arguments presented by our opponents.

Good point!

Honest question by me....

If have roughly 10 anti states and 40 neutral to pro states.

If we get the majority of the Senate to be like minded as compared to the House, which has passed the Bills before, doesn't this become Majority Rule....and then it wont matter what CA, NY says?

Why does every one focus on why it can't happen instead of how it can

Nothings impossible. Put on the American ingenuity hat on and take off the blinders.

 

[shootniron]

danez71...it is obvious that you are a noob to government.

You seek what you want and I will seek what I want.

You seem to think that that the fed government is of noble intentions and it is not. Can you not look at the crap going on...the ridiculous mandates that government is forcing on this country today...and not think that it would be best to keep them away from more involvement with our guns.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would INVITE, IMPLORE or SEEK more gov involvement in guns with it's track record of seeking to limit as much of the 2A as it can. It is idiocy.

Like I said...you seek yours and I will seek mine.

And, yes, you are ignorant of government.

 

[danez71]

BSA1, I meant to type No Disrespect. I apologize for the mistake.

Whoring.... posting a bunch of off topic Fudd drivel.

Rather than looking it up in the freedictionary.... read the actual Bills summary that's been handed to you.

Posting comments with out reading, at minimum, the summary of each Bill is doing everyone a disservice including yourself.

 

[danez71]

danez71...it is obvious that you are a noob to government.

You seek what you want and I will seek what I want.

You seem to think that that the fed government is of noble intentions and it is not. Can you not look at the crap going on...the ridiculous mandates that government is forcing on this country today...and not think that it would be best to keep them away from more involvement with our guns.

Like I said...you seek yours and I will seek mine.

And, yes, you are ignorant of government.

Fine... since this thread isn't for you... don't post. Have some respect.

Sure.. I see the crude the Govt does. FYI... they work for us.

If you don't like it then work to better it instead of making excuses out if fear they might do something worse.

Read what is handed to you. NONE of the bills contained any language giving the Govt more meddling powers.

If the fear of that is paralyzing to you, you are already defeated.

 

[gc70]

Honest question by me....

If have roughly 10 anti states and 40 neutral to pro states.

If we get the majority of the Senate to be like minded as compared to the House, which has passed the Bills before, doesn't this become Majority Rule....and then it wont matter what CA, NY says?

The first hurdle is that the House operates on a simple majority, but the Senate requires a three-fifths majority to overcome a filibuster.

The second hurdle is that two-thirds majorities are required in both the House and Senate to overcome a potential Presidential veto.

 

[JSH1]

​

[*]The Republicans need control of the House and Senate.

[*]We need a majority in the House and Senate to get something through even if it isn't ideal.

Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014

Today to get something passed without any support from the opposing party you need a simple majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency. That is for pure partisan votes. If you can craft a bill that people in both parties will support than it gets much easier.

However, to do that you have to:
A. Give your representatives permission to talk to members of the other side
B. Realize that you won't get everything you want. Compromise will be involved.

 

[The Alaskan]

You're also forgetting that has to pass Constitutional muster.

I stand by my suggestion that a national ccw law would violate the 10th Amendment, and don't think someone, somewhere will challenge it as such. You don't really think that 5 Supreme Court justices are going to sign off on this, do you? (Especially if Hillary wins next year and gets to appoint a justice.)

PS: you still have to get it past el Presidente and that means not this year or next and maybe not the next 8 years.

 

[Sam1911]

As Frank said, the more ... scholarly ... debate to be had is the one over the 9th and 10th Amendment questions raised by this. That's the one that causes me to equivocate. Two ways of looking at it:

1) Two (ok...47 thousand...) wrongs don't make a right, and we should not be party to, or encourage, any further trampling of the 9th and 10th Amendments, even if it is to get what WE want.

2) The djini is completely and vastly out of the friggin' bottle, with regards to the 9th and 10th Amendment questions. The damage is done, federalism is de facto deceased. Crying about that doesn't help us accomplish any good, while the other side goes along happily nibbling away. We might as well use the same commerce-clause-Über-Alles tactics to counterattack and get something positive out of the situation as it stands.

I know which my heart wants and I know which my head says we aught to do. Except sometimes it's t'other way 'round.



Arguments that if Congress passes a law mandating "recognition" or "reciprocity" for existing licenses, then next year they'll institute a federal program of licensing and codified federal restrictions and limits, is just a logical leap of grand proportions. It is simply an argument from non sequitur.

The difference in the sort of legislation that says, essentially, "One state shall give full faith and credit to this sort of license when issued by another state," and legislation which would establish an entire new set of statutory regulations, enforcement procedures, and by implication, and entire bureaucracy for licensing and record-keeping, is night and day.

The hand-wringing that one MUST follow the other really does come off as unreasonable fear.



IF there is a bill written and floated through the houses of Congress, which DOES establish any of those things, then by all means we can go ahead and oppose it, if we look at it and decide that it is unworthy of our support.

But right now we're tiliting at a windmill that not only hasn't been built, it isn't even on the plans table.

 

[Salmoneye]

Please leave Vermont out of this...

We're doing just fine...

 

[Sam1911]

Please leave Vermont out of this...

We're doing just fine...

Not sure I understand. VT already allows anyone who may legally own a gun to carry it. So no federal legislation on the subject would affect you in any way.

 

[HexHead]

Shouldn't be any different than state's recognizing each other's driver licenses.

 

[Lord Teapot]

vote for trump, he said he'd push for one. he's not a career politician, so he's arguably the most honest candidate for president we've ever had, based on the known fact that all career politicians lie and pander for votes to keep their careers.

 

[BSA1]

danez71,

First of all I did read over the National Carry bills links that were posted.

Second the Federal Government has no authority to regulate conceal carry in the States.

I suggest that while your cause is noble you are politically naive.

Laws are enacted either as a stand alone bills or as amendments (riders) on other bills. Stand alone Bills are easier to understand and to voice your opinion over.

It is common to attach unpopular things, for example pay raises and perks for Members of Congress, to larger Bills that are hard to oppose such as Defense Spending or the current spending bill fight. These riders are the result of compromises to get support, often added at the 11th hour with no discussion or debate and buried so deep in the massive bill it may not be discovered until three months after it was passed.

So my point is this. A National Carry Bill is passed. Later political power in Washington shifts and the anti 2A's know that that a stand alone gun control bill will not pass. However many MOC are coming up for reelection so they want to pass a big spending bill to bring some pork barrel projects to their Districts and improve their popularity. To achieve that they agree not to oppose a amendment (rider) on the Bill for closing a "loophole" in the original carry law.

Sound familiar?

In regards to Sam1911 point that a negative action must follow the first just take a look at the EPA. It passed because everyone wants safe drinking water. Look at what it has envolved into. It didn't happen overnight but it has happened.

 

[Midwest]

Not sure I understand. VT already allows anyone who may legally own a gun to carry it. So no federal legislation on the subject would affect you in any way.

But the National Right to Carry Law would be essentially useless for Vermont residents because they would not be able to carry in any other state that requires permits...

(Since Vermont does not issue permits, how could there be reciprocity for them? To enact a law requiring permits in Vermont would a huge step backward for Vermont residents. But it could solve the issue of being able to carry in states that require permits.)


And likewise residents in NJ, MD and HI, how would the National Right to Carry Law help them? If their states refuse to issue permits to it's residents. How can there reciprocity? You have to get the laws changed in those states first. And then get NY, CA, MA and the others to change it's laws. Unless a Court orders it, and it can't be challenged. How can it happen?
.

 

[The Alaskan]

Not sure I understand. VT already allows anyone who may legally own a gun to carry it. So no federal legislation on the subject would affect you in any way.

It will if said Federal carry permit law says no open carry and/or required 1000 hours of training.

It's the Supremacy Clause. Federal law trumps state law every time. So if your state already has a gun law that is less restrictive than whatever new Federal law comes out, your state law is essentially voided.

Alaska is in the same position. We allow OC and CC with no permitting process of any kind. I doubt that is going to pass any Congressional committee or open floor debate.

 

[The Alaskan]

Shouldn't be any different than state's recognizing each other's driver licenses.

The problem with that analogy is that driver license requirements are relatively uniform throughout all 50 states. Sure, each state has different DUI laws, but the driving is essentially the same.

Imagine for a minute, if a state like, say Alaska or Vermont, gave driver license to everyone age 16 and over with no written or driving test and no driver education program in the schools. (Alaska schools, in fact, do not have driver's ed.) Would other states be so willing to accept AK or VT driver licenses? I think not.

 

[TimSr]

Perhaps this entire thread should be moved to the "activism" forum so that it can be discussed in its proper context of a legislative proposal weighed against Constitution intent, as the Legal forum is restricted to established and settled case law where posts based on Constututional theory of intent are not permitted to remain.