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

[Nom de Forum]

No, I'm not for it either way no matter who would approve it, but what I'm saying is that SCOTUS saying it's a constitutional right is the only way it could be forced through being that the votes and support for such a thing is not and will not be there anytime in the foreseeable future. Many gun owners and most Liberals are against it. Many largely populated states with would be against it to. Short of a SCOTUS decision, I don't see it happening. Seems like wishful thinking on our behalf, but that's just my opinion.

Even if you are right about it taking a SCOTUS decision, that is never going to happen without making it the number one priority of a very large percentage of the supporters of the RKBA.

 

[Praxidike]

All it would take is someone with standing, which shouldn't be hard to find, and money. A "very large percentage of the supporters of the RKBA" isn't really needed.

If it did get to the current SCOTUS, I don't see them landing on our side especially being that they don't seem to on taking on 2A cases to often. Seem that they purposely reject most as a way to keep it in the state's and legislator's hands.

__________________

 

[The Alaskan]

Alaskan, I appreciate your meaningful post about the 10th.

But this post is baseless because, as its been pointed out a few times now, the bills proposed are NOT for a National Permit, they've been for National Reciprocity.

That's a big.. huge!... difference.

If such a bill were to be introduced for a national permit... I'd likely be very against it too. But that's not the case in any of the bills introduced linked since 2007.

I still stand by argument. I don't think the Federal government has the authority to mandate every state to accept the laws of others states, or to allow the residents of other states to break their laws simply because their home state has different laws.

If the states themselves wish to agree to reciprocity, as many have done, that's an other issue.

But your argument is basically because I'm an Alaskan, and I can OC in AK, I should be able to do so in New Jersey.

The people of NJ don't want guns in their communities. They don't want people (law abiding or otherwise) to carry guns in public places. They prove this by electing local officials who pass restrictive gun laws. Who am I (or who are you) to say that, because you live in a conservative minded state, that New Jersey has to let you follow your own state's law, while in New Jersey?

I believe that is called extraterritoriality. This whole thing tramples on the very idea of states' rights and, if it passed, would set a frightening legal precedent. Imagine, people carrying their home states' laws with them all over the country.

"Hey, I live in Colorado, so I can go to Texas and sell pot and it's legal for me to do, because I live in Colorado." That is essentially what you're wanting to do with guns.

 

[The Alaskan]

Seem that they purposely reject most as a way to keep it in the state's and legislator's hands.

That's because gun owners are the ONLY ones who want this issue definitively settled once and for all.

Think about how much money each of you gives to the NRA and to NRA-ILA every year. And think about how much of that money goes into political campaigns every year. And if gun owners and the NRA are spending that kind of money, you can bet the other side is trying hard to match it.

Believe me when I say NO ONE in Washington wants this issue settled. It would be akin to killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Just think about it for a moment before you flame me out of here. If the Supreme Court ever ruled that the 2nd Amendment was an absolute right and that any infringement at any level was illegal, or, conversely, if the 2nd Amendment were completely repealed, then there would be no more need for NRA or it's adversaries. Wayne LaPierre would have to get a real job, and so would Bloomberg etc etc. NOBODY wants that.

 

[Praxidike]

I still stand by argument. I don't think the Federal government has the authority to mandate every state to accept the laws of others states, or to allow the residents of other states to break their laws simply because their home state has different laws.

If the states themselves wish to agree to reciprocity, as many have done, that's an other issue.

But your argument is basically because I'm an Alaskan, and I can OC in AK, I should be able to do so in New Jersey.

The people of NJ don't want guns in their communities. They don't want people (law abiding or otherwise) to carry guns in public places. They prove this by electing local officials who pass restrictive gun laws. Who am I (or who are you) to say that, because you live in a conservative minded state, that New Jersey has to let you follow your own state's law, while in New Jersey?

I believe that is called extraterritoriality. This whole thing tramples on the very idea of states' rights and, if it passed, would set a frightening legal precedent. Imagine, people carrying their home states' laws with them all over the country.

"Hey, I live in Colorado, so I can go to Texas and sell pot and it's legal for me to do, because I live in Colorado." That is essentially what you're wanting to do with guns.

I agree with you, and you proved my point. Many on our side believe in state's rights and/or just don't trust the government, so they'll be against it. Most on the gun control side will be unified against it. There's not going to be enough votes or support to get this through Congress anytime soon.

Im perfectly happy with the current scheme where if a state like Georgia, for example, doesn't recognize my VA CPP, I have the option to apply for a GA permit or a Utah nonresident permit which will allow me to carry in GA and a few other states that don't reciprocate with VA. This way state's still have rights and the federal government and legislators from antigun states have no say so in the carry scheme in my state. If I don't like the carry scheme in my state, I can move to a state that best suits my requirements.

Instead of trying to push for National Carry, I think it maybe more realistic to make the case that there should be a way for out of states residents to apply for a carry license in states like NY, HI, DC, etc based on the fact that SCOTUS stated that the 2A extends beyond the home; however, because some states don't recognize carry permits from any other state nor do they allow non residents to apply to carry, a good case can be made that non resident's 2A rights are being infringed on within those states. This is a winnable case, IMHO, and would give gun owners the option to carry in all 50 states if it's personally worth the trouble.

 

[Frank Ettin]

That's because gun owners are the ONLY ones who want this issue definitively settled once and for all.

Think about how much money each of you gives to the NRA and to NRA-ILA every year. And think about how much of that money goes into political campaigns every year. And if gun owners and the NRA are spending that kind of money, you can bet the other side is trying hard to match it.

Believe me when I say NO ONE in Washington wants this issue settled. It would be akin to killing the goose that laid the golden egg....

No one need worry about things being resolved once and for all. Nothing ever gets resolved once and for all.

Brown v. Board of Education was in 1954, and we still have litigation on racial discrimination. Roe v Wade was in 1973, and there are cases on related issue pending in federal courts in 20 States.

...Just think about it for a moment before you flame me out of here. If the Supreme Court ever ruled that the 2nd Amendment was an absolute right and that any infringement at any level was illegal,...

And there has never been a court ruling on any subject remotely like that. In fact the nature of the judicial process precludes that degree of finality.

Courts decide disputes. To decide those disputes courts apply the law to the facts. Often there will be a dispute as to what law applied or how the law applies, and rulings necessarily made by a court on such matters then become persuasive to or binding on other courts dealing with similar matters.

But while cases can be similar, they will not be identical. We will often argue that the current case is different enough in material ways to warrant a different application of the law. Things will constantly and continuously evolve.

 

[deadin]

Has anybody heard the old saying "If you let a camel get his nose in the tent, pretty soon you will have the whole camel in the tent"?

Think of the Federal Government as a camel...........

 

[CoalTrain49]

"Hey, I live in Colorado, so I can go to Texas and sell pot and it's legal for me to do, because I live in Colorado." That is essentially what you're wanting to do with guns.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

One size fits all socialist big gov't interference into a perfectly well run state by the citizens that live there.

Here's one to live by.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...68fd1c-225d-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

Although this has a rather chilling affect on the AR owners of Maryland I have to agree with the decision. The law was past by the elected officials of that state and not by congress. It only affects those who live in Maryland. If it had been congress who passed the law we would all be living with it just like the AWB that congress past in 1994.

Who am I to tell the good folks of Maryland how to live. Maryland has it's own set of problems to deal with and I'm sure they don't want me helping them solve their problems. I don't have a clue how they like their rifles and I'm sure they don't know how I like mine.

 

[danez71]

Think of the Federal Government as a camel...........

....or, better yet, think of US as the camel.

I'm spending some time with the wife this weekend so I won't be posting much.

I do want to say Thank You to all of the posters that have their positive thinking hats on.

The spirit and freedom of America must succeed over a suppressive govt.

Let's challenge ourselves to not be fearful of our govt to the point of not trying.

We can get something incrementally better passed.

And a special thanks to the mods... this was going south and I do see some more positive spark now.

We have some sharp minds here.... let's challange the status quo of letting the govt take the fight to us and instead... take the fight to them.

Best regards to all. I never intended to offend anyone... only to challenge the status quo of thinking something wont/can't change for the better and instead move towards coming up with ways it can


Together we can achieve great things.

 

[The Alaskan]

I'm spending some time with the wife this weekend so I won't be posting much.

Spending time with the wife?

Instead of posting on the internet?

Lame.

 

[RPRNY]

Do we really want a national right to carry law?

Not: do we really want the national right to carry? Of course we do. But do we want it via federal law?

What Congress giveth, so might a future Congress taketh away. If you live in some communist heartland state like NY, NJ Illinois, for example, I can see where a federal law might look good and hold out the promise of shall issue permits. But if you live in a civilized state with shall issue regs and wide reciprocity, you probably also have a State legislature that is not keen on doing away with those rules and where the jokers on the legislative committee can't readily insulate themselves from the lowly masses like our Congresscritters do. Now, Congresscum? They might be held in check from doing serious harm by the NRA and others right now. But Mike Bloomberg and a bunch of other nanny state liberal Obama Oligarchs are throwing a lot of money around and half the GOP liars that claim to be pro 2A would backslide in a NY minute if they thought they could get away with it.

So, a federal national carry law has a lot if risk and potential downside. Some kind of national reciprocity convention signed onto by the State legislatures would be safer in my view. Sure, we couldn't get the worst communist states on board, but I'd be surprised if we couldn't get 40 states. The upside is vastly expanded carry, diminished uncertainty , and no reliance on the cesspit federal government for guaranteeing the right. The downside is no right to carry in outhouse states where you probably shouldn't carry anyway because the temptation to shoot most of the population is simply beyond the level of restraint capable by most humans.

 

[BSA1]

danez71, Nom de Forum, et al,

When I said you might be politically naïve I didn’t mean it as a insult. I mean that the Federal (and most State) Governments are so dysfunctional, twisted and corrupt it is impossible for the average person to understand how they function and their decision making processes.

I post my comments about the Government from the unique experience of being a State Bureaucrat for over 20 years. During that time I was frequently involved in discussions with top ranking Government Department heads and State attorneys over the meaning of laws about certain crimes.statutes that regulated my Agency, and policies and procedures.

It is not uncommon for my State to knowing continue to enforce a unconstitutional statute or policy that is in direct violation of the law even while a lawsuit has been filed. When the case is finally about ready to reach the court for trial the State will then change the policy to comply with what the law says thus avoiding the case going before the Court.

Any National Conceal Carry Bill that is passed is going to face legal challenges which are going to take many years to work it way through the Courts at the cost of millions of dollars.

We have won a lot of victories in the States and Courts without any help from the Federal Government. On a national level I would rather spend our political capital and money on more practical achievable goals such as amending the National Firearms Act.

 

[Nom de Forum]

danez71, Nom de Forum, et al,

When I said you might be politically naïve I didn’t mean it as a insult. I mean that the Federal (and most State) Governments are so dysfunctional, twisted and corrupt it is impossible for the average person to understand how they function and their decision making processes.

I post my comments about the Government from the unique experience of being a State Bureaucrat for over 20 years. During that time I was frequently involved in discussions with top ranking Government Department heads and State attorneys over the meaning of laws about certain crimes.statutes that regulated my Agency, and policies and procedures.

It is not uncommon for my State to knowing continue to enforce a unconstitutional statute or policy that is in direct violation of the law even while a lawsuit has been filed. When the case is finally about ready to reach the court for trial the State will then change the policy to comply with what the law says thus avoiding the case going before the Court.

Any National Conceal Carry Bill that is passed is going to face legal challenges which are going to take many years to work it way through the Courts at the cost of millions of dollars.

We have won a lot of victories in the States and Courts without any help from the Federal Government. On a national level I would rather spend our political capital and money on more practical achievable goals such as amending the National Firearms Act.

No insult felt. No apology necessary. I respect the perspective gained from your experience. Somewhere between your pessimism and my optimism is probably where realism resides. No doubt a National Right to Carry Law will require enormous man-hours of work, calendar time, and money. It would be great to get the NFA amended but in my opinion that is putting the cart before the horse. I think it far more likely a NRCL will lead to amendment of the NFA than the reverse. A NRCL will increase the number of people supporting firearm usage. That should provide a larger block of voters that will be receptive to motivating politicians to amendment of the NFA.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Is that a bad thing?

It is when the federal gov't does it and the SC backs them up. I don't mind being told what to do if I have some say in it. I have more control over state legislation than I do congress or the supreme court. I knew a state senator from my district personally and had many long conversations with her. Accessing congress folks is a bit trickier, mostly because they are always in DC. They let staff handle most of their contacts. I sent an email to my congressman once and it took him 4 months to respond.

I'm living with a UBC right now that the voters of this state put into law. I don't like it but at least I know it came from people that live in WA and not Maryland.

The US is a big country and what works for people in the northeast won't necessarily work for people in the west. That simple.

You want laws repealed? Why not make many of them so irrelevant with the passage of one law that you do not have to fight multiple battles to get each one of them repealed?

I wasn't talking about your laws in AZ. or any other state. What you do there is your business and the laws you pass are relevant to the people who live there. As AZ is a constitutional carry state I would be wrong to try to repeal that. The constitution and fed code is silent there so you get to practice that. How would you feel if I had Bill Gate's money and decided to pass a bill in congress to make CC illegal? The 5 states that have it would be then be without it because I had the money to get it banned nation wide. States laws are relevant.

We have a UBC here that I'm working to get repealed.

 

[MartinS]

Doing it from the bottom up is so long and so hard and so tall that we'll never get anywhere, anywhere at all. I sympathize with the notion of the kingly solution. But it is just not who we are.

 

[Praxidike]

It is when the federal gov't does it and the SC backs them up. I don't mind being told what to do if I have some say in it. I have more control over state legislation than I do congress or the supreme court. I knew a state senator from my district personally and had many long conversations with her. Accessing congress folks is a bit trickier, mostly because they are always in DC. They let staff handle most of their contacts. I sent an email to my congressman once and it took him 4 months to respond.

I'm living with a UBC right now that the voters of this state put into law. I don't like it but at least I know it came from people that live in WA and not Maryland.

The US is a big country and what works for people in the northeast won't necessarily work for people in the west. That simple.



I wasn't talking about your laws in AZ. or any other state. What you do there is your business and the laws you pass are relevant to the people who live there. As AZ is a constitutional carry state I would be wrong to try to repeal that. The constitution and fed code is silent there so you get to practice that. How would you feel if I had Bill Gate's money and decided to pass a bill in congress to make CC illegal? The 5 states that have it would be then be without it because I had the money to get it banned nation wide. States laws are relevant.

We have a UBC here that I'm working to get repealed.

I have never heard a gun owner who had UC in their state be against it and actively working to repleal it. May I ask why?

 

[CoalTrain49]

I have never heard a gun owner who had UC in their state be against it and actively working to repleal it. May I ask why?

Sure. UBC (universal background check). I-594 kicked in here last year because of an initiative on the ballot. Now all firearm sales and transfers have to go through a dealer and state keeps a record of all hand guns that go through. Cost? Anywhere from $25 to $50 per transaction because it has to go through an FFL. Also state collects 9% sales tax on the transaction even though it's private property being sold or just transferred.

Before we had private sales without the back ground check. I use the term universal because that's what it is. No firearm or person is exempt.

 

[Praxidike]

Oops.. I skimmed and misread what you wrote. I was thinking you were talking about UC.

 

[BSA1]

If it did get to the current SCOTUS, I don't see them landing on our side especially being that they don't seem to on taking on 2A cases to often. Seem that they purposely reject most as a way to keep it in the state's and legislator's hands.

Even if a such a bill was passed tomorrow how many years will it take for it to work it's way up to the Supreme Court? At least two Presidents (Obama and the next Prez). Assuming the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case there will be at least one new Justice on it. And it will only take one vote for us to lose.

 

[The Alaskan]

Even if a such a bill was passed tomorrow how many years will it take for it to work it's way up to the Supreme Court? At least two Presidents (Obama and the next Prez). Assuming the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case there will be at least one new Justice on it. And it will only take one vote for us to lose.

Yup. And you can bet your sweet patootie at least one justice will be appointed during the next administration.

 

[hatt]

If the feds can tell states to accept other states' laws they can also set certain standards. Lets keep the feds out of it. We're doing fine without them.

 

[Midwest]

If the feds can tell states to accept other states' laws they can also set certain standards. Lets keep the feds out of it. We're doing fine without them.

Yep, by the time we get a carry law...it would be so watered down that we'll only have a right to carry a handgun unloaded with a trigger lock, in a locked box from the store to our house and to the range on Saturday between 9am and 5pm.
.

 

[HexHead]

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.

TN schools don't offer drivers ed either. Our drivers licenses are recognized everywhere.

 

[HexHead]

I still stand by argument. I don't think the Federal government has the authority to mandate every state to accept the laws of others states, or to allow the residents of other states to break their laws simply because their home state has different laws.

If the states themselves wish to agree to reciprocity, as many have done, that's an other issue.

But your argument is basically because I'm an Alaskan, and I can OC in AK, I should be able to do so in New Jersey.

The people of NJ don't want guns in their communities. They don't want people (law abiding or otherwise) to carry guns in public places. They prove this by electing local officials who pass restrictive gun laws. Who am I (or who are you) to say that, because you live in a conservative minded state, that New Jersey has to let you follow your own state's law, while in New Jersey?

I believe that is called extraterritoriality. This whole thing tramples on the very idea of states' rights and, if it passed, would set a frightening legal precedent. Imagine, people carrying their home states' laws with them all over the country.

"Hey, I live in Colorado, so I can go to Texas and sell pot and it's legal for me to do, because I live in Colorado." That is essentially what you're wanting to do with guns.

No, you follow the laws that residents in that state have to follow if they have a permit, and all 50 states now allow at least some people to legally carry. Again, just like with driver licenses, just because you live in a state that allows a right turn on red, doesn't mean you can do it in a state that doesn't.

 

[oneounceload]

If the feds can tell states to accept other states' laws they can also set certain standards. Lets keep the feds out of it. We're doing fine without them.

They do it all the time, usually by financial coercion. During the oil crises in the 70s, states had THEIR money withheld by the Fed if they didn't lower the limit to 55 (Anyone who has driven across NV, UT, WY, MT knows the idiocy there).
They're doing it now with school lunch funding - demanding they provide "free" lunches to poor kids and now of a certain type, or no funding.
I wouldn't want to bet a similar tactic would be used in this scenario.