National CCW for those supporting states right

[Sam1911]

I can understand states rights but not when it comes down to what amounts to harming human rights.

I've got an admission to make: If it wasn't for the fact that I liked guns and read about them heavily, and learned as much as I could about the laws governing them, and then learned how and why to fight those laws, I'd have really never stumbled into much of an interest in Constitutional law, near as I can tell.

And I can't help but believe that I've got rather a lot of company in that, looking around the forum at all these thousands of enthusiasts who gather here.

And it appears to me we've all arrived together at this point where we like to stand up and proclaim how we're Constitutional originalists, maybe textualists. And most of us have branched out to see that the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be preserved in the same way we'd like our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to be.

So we're all great amateur Constitutional enthusiasts and defenders -- as seen through the lens of gun rights.

And a fair number of us have managed to become at least half so enamored of the 1st Amendment as the 2nd, and that's great. And a fair number of us have come to a realization that a very great deal of federal political and legislative goings-on in the 20th and 21st centuries don't seem to look exactly like what was written back in 1787. And a prime example -- among many -- of this is how the modern limitations on states' rights very significantly diverge from how the early, pre-Civil War, federal government operated.

But now we face a possible opportunity to do something really powerful for all Americans, which would stand a chance of significantly moving the goalposts in the gun rights debate. A federal law that says citizens must be allowed to bear arms no matter where they go across the country (with limits, but not based on state borders). That would be such a sea change that most of us can't quite imagine it. Driving armed over the NY or MD or CA state line for the first time would be like walking out on a bridge made of tempered glass. Exhilarating but scary at the same time!

But some of us now have reservations. Having latched on so tightly to Constitutional originalist ideology that this clearly positive step now makes us uncomfortable. We've been abused and insulted by federal laws which restrict and infringe our rights to bear arms, and told our state can't "occupy the field" in those areas, but must bow to federal laws that tried to tell us we couldn't own "Assault Weapons", or that threatened to force upon us Universal Background Checks, and on an on. But now that we might hold enough power to use that federal might to loosen the chains a bit, we say, "Oh, we shouldn't ... that would violate state's rights!" As though that weren't a horse so far beyond the proverbial barn door, that the horse died of old age and the barn burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp.

Seriously, we're weighing the chance to breathe new life into the terms written into the 2nd Amendment, "...to keep and bear arms..." against a pretty well abandoned and disused alternate view of federalism that we now find ourselves to be nearly the only proponents of (seeing as segregation isn't a thing any more). And saying, "naaahhh... this abandoned view of states' rights that nobody but us even thinks about these days is more important that putting the supercharger on the words "and bear" in the 2nd Amendment."

I'd really like to hear if I'm off base on that. Maybe there's some other avenue or genesis for this adoption of originalist views of state's rights as a supreme component of our political philosophy. How is it we've elevated it so high in our thinking that it actually is worthy of superseding an effort to use federal legislation in our favor?

 

[230RN]

OK, here's the 3-2 pitch:

I'm kinda done with this one because I'm apparently swimming upstream on this board.

If some folks can't grasp the very possible inherent long-term negative effects of the federal government getting involved in concealed carry, then that's it, despite all the apologetics and rebuttals and questions and monotribes about my position.

Therefore, I give up. There's no argument beyond that which I can make.

Have at it.

But, as I insist, there's nothing you or the NRA can write that can't be amended to our detriment WRT concealed carry tomorrow.

Terry

 

[readyeddy]

There's no need to give up the discussion. Yes, the legislative process is like sausage making, not very appetizing, and a lot of horse trading. There are no guarantees that a pro-gun bill can't morph into something unintended by the original drafter by spring boarding compromises or trading votes. But Sam1911 and others have raised important issues that could work out best for all of us. It's a great discussion and I think the state's rights advocates also raise important issues. Maybe those familiar with the legislative process can add to the discussion and shed some light on the subject matter.

 

[Cannibul]

OK, here's the 3-2 pitch:



If some folks can't grasp the very possible inherent long-term negative effects of the federal government getting involved in concealed carry, then that's it, despite all the apologetics and rebuttals and questions and monotribes about my position.

Therefore, I give up. There's no argument beyond that which I can make.

Have at it.

But, as I insist, there's nothing you or the NRA can write that can't be amended to our detriment WRT concealed carry tomorrow.

Terry

All the current bill would do is extend Second Amendment rights. They are not getting involved. Just clarifying the Second for the states too stupid to understand it.

 

[230RN]

^ Acknowledged with no comment.

 

[readyeddy]

https://hudson.house.gov/uploads/Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 1-pager.pdf

Here's a summary of one of the bills. This will ensure reciprocity between states that recognize their own resident's right to carry concealed. So it looks like that states that do not recognize their own residents' right to carry concealed will not be affected, at least by this bill.

 

[Sam1911]

If some folks can't grasp the very possible inherent long-term negative effects of the federal government getting involved in concealed carry, then that's it, despite all the apologetics and rebuttals and questions and monotribes about my position.

You haven't answered the questions and so that argument unfortunately starts to look less and less based on anything practical or tangible.

You can say you simply won't comment further, but that makes the pitch seem more like generalized negativity than clear headed analysis of risks.

Sort of like the ancient maps that showed a warning written in the uncharted regions, "Here be monsters!".

Spooky sounding, but not terribly informative, and in the end those warnings proved unhelpful and a hindrance to progress.

 

[danez71]

I've got an admission to make: If it wasn't for the fact that I liked guns and read about them heavily, and learned as much as I could about the laws governing them, and then learned how and why to fight those laws, I'd have really never stumbled into much of an interest in Constitutional law, near as I can tell.

And I can't help but believe that I've got rather a lot of company in that, looking around the forum at all these thousands of enthusiasts who gather here.

And it appears to me we've all arrived together at this point where we like to stand up and proclaim how we're Constitutional originalists, maybe textualists. And most of us have branched out to see that the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be preserved in the same way we'd like our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to be.

So we're all great amateur Constitutional enthusiasts and defenders -- as seen through the lens of gun rights.

And a fair number of us have managed to become at least half so enamored of the 1st Amendment as the 2nd, and that's great. And a fair number of us have come to a realization that a very great deal of federal political and legislative goings-on in the 20th and 21st centuries don't seem to look exactly like what was written back in 1787. And a prime example -- among many -- of this is how the modern limitations on states' rights very significantly diverge from how the early, pre-Civil War, federal government operated.

But now we face a possible opportunity to do something really powerful for all Americans, which would stand a chance of significantly moving the goalposts in the gun rights debate. A federal law that says citizens must be allowed to bear arms no matter where they go across the country (with limits, but not based on state borders). That would be such a sea change that most of us can't quite imagine it. Driving armed over the NY or MD or CA state line for the first time would be like walking out on a bridge made of tempered glass. Exhilarating but scary at the same time!

But some of us now have reservations. Having latched on so tightly to Constitutional originalist ideology that this clearly positive step now makes us uncomfortable. We've been abused and insulted by federal laws which restrict and infringe our rights to bear arms, and told our state can't "occupy the field" in those areas, but must bow to federal laws that tried to tell us we couldn't own "Assault Weapons", or that threatened to force upon us Universal Background Checks, and on an on. But now that we might hold enough power to use that federal might to loosen the chains a bit, we say, "Oh, we shouldn't ... that would violate state's rights!" As though that weren't a horse so far beyond the proverbial barn door, that the horse died of old age and the barn burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp.

Seriously, we're weighing the chance to breathe new life into the terms written into the 2nd Amendment, "...to keep and bear arms..." against a pretty well abandoned and disused alternate view of federalism that we now find ourselves to be nearly the only proponents of (seeing as segregation isn't a thing any more). And saying, "naaahhh... this abandoned view of states' rights that nobody but us even thinks about these days is more important that putting the supercharger on the words "and bear" in the 2nd Amendment."

I'd really like to hear if I'm off base on that. Maybe there's some other avenue or genesis for this adoption of originalist views of state's rights as a supreme component of our political philosophy. How is it we've elevated it so high in our thinking that it actually is worthy of superseding an effort to use federal legislation in our favor?

I don't disagree with what you're rambling about ;-)

I think people want to to believe that the Constitution only applied to the Feds and that no one wanted the Feds in their lives but the reality is that many/most? did want the Feds in their lives at least to some to degree. Things like international trade is isn't even debated.

How much is what's debated.

Now lets look at the 14th. A lot of people like tobash the 14th when they don't like it saying it polluted and eroded states rights..... but then applaud it when it's convenient.

The concept of applying constitutional rights isn't some liberal brain fart of the Clintons.

I think many don't realize an important aspect of the 14h.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th was inspired and modeled from the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the Constitution and ties into the Articles of Confederation which predates the ratification of the Constitution.


What I think may be worthy to note is Maddison 1791 : "And seeing we live in an enlightened age, when liberty is allowed to be the unalianable right of all mankind <snip>"


Absent, to my knowledge, was talk such as 'all the BOR are 'unalianable right of all mankind' unless your state doesn't want you to have it.


IMO, that just doesn't passed the straight face test.

Nor does it make sense that the founding fathers would be so concerned with the Fed government violating our rights but had zero concern that the state governments ever would.


I think the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the Constitution with its ties to the Articles of Confederation show that it was a concern.

Ehhhh.... but who's to say.


What I can say is that there is no other BOR that is applied/restricted with such a huge disparity from state to state. The amount of disparity would be unfathomable and uncontionable in today's time if we were talking about the other BOR.

 

[SC Shooter]

Both sides of the debate have their pluses & minuses. I doubt this will be resolved for a very long time.

 

[hso]

There are pro2A opponents to any national carry laws due to the central control it would put in the hands of an untrustworthy administration and/or congress. Any far reaching authority in government hands can be used against a larger group of people than individual state abuse.

 

[barnbwt]

I've got an admission to make: If it wasn't for the fact that I liked guns and read about them heavily, and learned as much as I could about the laws governing them, and then learned how and why to fight those laws, I'd have really never stumbled into much of an interest in Constitutional law, near as I can tell.

And I can't help but believe that I've got rather a lot of company in that, looking around the forum at all these thousands of enthusiasts who gather here.

And it appears to me we've all arrived together at this point where we like to stand up and proclaim how we're Constitutional originalists, maybe textualists. And most of us have branched out to see that the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be preserved in the same way we'd like our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to be.

So we're all great amateur Constitutional enthusiasts and defenders -- as seen through the lens of gun rights.

And a fair number of us have managed to become at least half so enamored of the 1st Amendment as the 2nd, and that's great. And a fair number of us have come to a realization that a very great deal of federal political and legislative goings-on in the 20th and 21st centuries don't seem to look exactly like what was written back in 1787. And a prime example -- among many -- of this is how the modern limitations on states' rights very significantly diverge from how the early, pre-Civil War, federal government operated.

But now we face a possible opportunity to do something really powerful for all Americans, which would stand a chance of significantly moving the goalposts in the gun rights debate. A federal law that says citizens must be allowed to bear arms no matter where they go across the country (with limits, but not based on state borders). That would be such a sea change that most of us can't quite imagine it. Driving armed over the NY or MD or CA state line for the first time would be like walking out on a bridge made of tempered glass. Exhilarating but scary at the same time!

But some of us now have reservations. Having latched on so tightly to Constitutional originalist ideology that this clearly positive step now makes us uncomfortable. We've been abused and insulted by federal laws which restrict and infringe our rights to bear arms, and told our state can't "occupy the field" in those areas, but must bow to federal laws that tried to tell us we couldn't own "Assault Weapons", or that threatened to force upon us Universal Background Checks, and on an on. But now that we might hold enough power to use that federal might to loosen the chains a bit, we say, "Oh, we shouldn't ... that would violate state's rights!" As though that weren't a horse so far beyond the proverbial barn door, that the horse died of old age and the barn burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp.

Seriously, we're weighing the chance to breathe new life into the terms written into the 2nd Amendment, "...to keep and bear arms..." against a pretty well abandoned and disused alternate view of federalism that we now find ourselves to be nearly the only proponents of (seeing as segregation isn't a thing any more). And saying, "naaahhh... this abandoned view of states' rights that nobody but us even thinks about these days is more important that putting the supercharger on the words "and bear" in the 2nd Amendment."

I'd really like to hear if I'm off base on that. Maybe there's some other avenue or genesis for this adoption of originalist views of state's rights as a supreme component of our political philosophy. How is it we've elevated it so high in our thinking that it actually is worthy of superseding an effort to use federal legislation in our favor?

Both Sam1911 and 230RN are right;
A law specifying exactly how the RKBA is to play out in practice is really beyond congress' original enumerated authority; the only possible argument that the feds could have an interest in state RKBA interference is that the 2nd Amendment does not stipulate congress (i.e. it was incorporated against the states since its inception, unlike the 1st or several other amendments). Seeing as the existence of federal authority equates to federal restriction under the very principles our nation was founded under, accepting congress' authority to essentially regulate an extremely clear and broad civil liberty is undeniably dangerous.

However, we no longer live in Antebellum America. The whole purpose of the Civil War was to justify through blood the federal government's authority & responsibility to forcibly impose freedom on the slave states. The whole purpose of the 14th amendment was to make the federal government the impartial mediator (ha!) and policemanwoman when it came to states imposing restrictions upon their citizens. So nowadays, it is most definitely the federal government's business if two states have vastly different licensing schemes for a freedom enumerated in the constitution. And it doesn't really matter if the implications of this authority are dangerous or not, since it's long settled law at this point. Even as we approach that Great Inversion where the fed's mandate to ensure equal liberty among the states transforms into something much darker in pursuit of equal outcomes. Such was the folly of the 14th amendment, but it was ratified at the point of a gun over the corpses of hundreds of thousands, so it is every bit as binding as Madison's verbiage signed over the corpses of Redcoats.

TCB

 

[carpboy]

Since this thread has given me much food for thought,and made me take time to rethink my opposition to Congress getting involved in CCW reciprocity between the states,I will throw some fresh meat into the debate in the form of a link to Massad Ayoobs most recent blog on this subject,along with a link found there to a paper by 2nd Amendment scholar Clayton E. Cramer.
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2890681
Abstract
Congress is considering passage of national concealed carry legislation requiring all states to recognize concealed weapon licenses issued by any state, rather like the way that every state recognizes driver’s licenses issued by another state. Are there any constitutional problems with such legislation? What practical problems might result? This paper seeks to answer those questions.

 

[Spats McGee]

There are pro2A opponents to any national carry laws due to the central control it would put in the hands of an untrustworthy administration and/or congress. Any far reaching authority in government hands can be used against a larger group of people than individual state abuse.

This.

I have often stated that the preferred way to get national CC is through the same mechanism by which driver licenses are recognized -- a interstate compact. Federal involvement is not necessary for one state to recognize another's permit, obviously. If a federal law is passed mandating recognition, I suspect that the Boxers and the Schumers will be calling for "national, common-sense standards" for issuing CCLs before the ink is dry in the President's signature.

 

[Ttexastom]

As in most federal government involvments, regulations and special taxes will be issued.

 

[Tcruse]

I suspect that we will have some more insight when the Sanctuary City political fight plays out. There is a lot the federal government can do without new laws by merely forcing the states/cities to follow existing law. The Heller decision if strictly enforced would end the AWB and Mag restrictions as an example.

 

[Ttexastom]

Think president trump will be hardnosed with sanctuary cities. Pelosi, boxer and others will feel the pinch.

 

[SouthernBoy]

The worse thing that could happen is if the federal government became the issuer of carry permits. With many of the state having rather "different" laws, the feds would have to stoop to the lowest common denominator in order to satisfy the most stringent of them.

The only good at the federal level would be to require all states to honor each other's permit holders but allow those individual states to continue with their own internal laws. This would satisfy the Commerce Clause and the states which have those rather strange laws. It would be up to the out-of-stater to know the laws of the states they choose to visit and carry while there.

 

[danez71]

The worse thing that could happen is if the federal government became the issuer of carry permits. With many of the state having rather "different" laws, the feds would have to stoop to the lowest common denominator in order to satisfy the most stringent of them.

The only good at the federal level would be to require all states to honor each other's permit holders but allow those individual states to continue with their own internal laws. This would satisfy the Commerce Clause and the states which have those rather strange laws. It would be up to the out-of-stater to know the laws of the states they choose to visit and carry while there.

The bold is like how it's written in the link provided earlier in the thread

 

[strambo]

But, as I insist, there's nothing you or the NRA can write that can't be amended to our detriment WRT concealed carry tomorrow.

Right...and that is different than just introducing new gun-control legislation or amendments how?

...and where would the political capitol to do this come from? Obama certainly didn't have any in 8 years. Gun control is a loser for politicians. The more CCW there is, the more everyone sees it (the fear-mongering) as a nothing-burger and the more people get permits, the support gets eroded even less. Conceal carry is more popular than ever and we have had about a decade of solid pro-gun tailwinds. Why stop now just because they might change it later? Congress will meddle in whatever they can anyway, they don't don't need a CCW reciprocity law to give them the idea.