Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

National concealed carry pending bills?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by JJY, Oct 2, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JJY

    JJY Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Virginia
    With respect to the pending house and senate bills that would require states to recognize the concealed carry permits/licenses issued by other states

    Does anyone think they will ever be voted on?
    Does anyone think they will pass?
    Does anyone care?

    Just wondering
     
  2. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    There is a Senate version and a House version.

    The House version would pass IF the Republicans stay in control of the House.

    It's the Senate that is the problem.

    Recently the US House allowed Federal judges to carry concealed handguns on the job.

    Certain Senators apparently balked at that and it is in limbo.
     
  3. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    Strange that with control of both houses and the presidency for over five years this never got anywhere until just before some difficult mid-term elections. You'd almost think that the GOP doesn't really care much about gun owners and just wants to string them along for votes :rolleyes:
     
  4. obiwan1

    obiwan1 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    495
    Location:
    Miami, Fl.
    They string voters along because it works! The Dems have been using this theory on black voters for GENERATIONS and it continues to be effective. We must be more demanding than they are.
     
  5. hugh damright

    hugh damright Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    825
    I don't want the federal government to have anything to do with concealed carry. I don't like the concealed carry laws in some States, but I respect their right to pass them ... just as I might not like what someone says but I still respect their right to say it.
     
  6. kludge

    kludge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Indiana
    The right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed.

    The national carry law already exists. No need for a new one.
     
  7. SolaScriptura139

    SolaScriptura139 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Location:
    Weirton, WV
    But do they really have the right to make laws on ccw? I thought the US constitution could not be outweighed by state law?
     
  8. DRMMR02

    DRMMR02 member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    It does. But in this day and age, that doesn't seem to matter much The idea of needing a license to bear a weapon is outrageous. And in most places you don't need one to carry openly. If anything, the opposite should be true. What I choose to carry on my own person out of public sight is no one's buisness but my own.
     
  9. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    So why haven't they done anything with it in the past five years they have HAD control of the house?

    You'd think they're promising it now so they could get votes, stay in...and promptly not do anything for another few years, then again, and again...
     
  10. 4t5

    4t5 Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Houston
    If a national CHL became law, all the feds have to do is push one button and anyone who has one suddenly doesn't. Centralization of power is never a good idea, even with a subject close to all of our hearts, such as this.
     
  11. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    For the love of God, Allah, trees and any other diety or potential supreme being I may have inadvertently left out...

    NEITHER BILL is national CCW!

    Both are reciprocity standard bills. Congres HAS the authority to regulate in the field of interstate commerce and since guns are made up of parts which HAVE TRAVELLED in interstate commerce, there is a nexus and thus, authority for congress to legislate. The courts have upheld this repeatedly and as recent as Raich which was cited to decide Stewart after remand.

    Should Congress be less involved in all aspects of our lives? Sure. Will they do that voluntarily? No. So, let's at least move the ball forward wile we have the chance. The antis won't hesitate to use congress against us...
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    572
    Thank goodness somebody recognizes this.
     
  13. romma

    romma Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,208
    Location:
    Southeastern,CT
    Well If

    The Government can use the commerce clause against us gun owners, why can't it be used in our favor. I am in Connecticut, and I darn for sure am not traveling to New York or Rhode Island to purchase diddly... If the .Gov would at least force our permits to be recognized, then I view that as a good thing... I cannot afford to go out and get an out of state permit in all 50. ido have my Ct and Fl permits.
     
  14. JJY

    JJY Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Virginia
    Not to mention that it would allow carry in places like DC.
     
  15. JJY

    JJY Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Virginia
    Smurfslayer, of course they are bills to require states to recognize the licenses/permits of other states, but that did not fit in the subject line as nicely as “national carry”. Besides, if passed, it would be the functional equivalent of national carry.

    I agree with those who point out that you should not need a permit or license to exercise a right. I have a permit in VA but if I cross the border into DC I could be arrested and convicted of a crime. I doubt there are many people willing to do that to prove a point. Passage of the bills would be a good step, as well as a “federal law” recognition of the right, albeit in a back handed “interstate commerce” manner.

    I guess I am a bit hypocritical here because I disagree with much of the expansion of the fed government that has occurred and justified based on the commerce clause and also disagree with many Supreme Court decisions that uphold federal laws on weak commerce clause grounds. In my view, the commerce clause has been stretched much further than ever intended.

    I say hypocritical because while I like the idea of all states honoring the permits / licenses of other states, I don’t like federal regulation with a tenuous commerce clause basis.
     
  16. Stickjockey

    Stickjockey Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,902
    Location:
    Happy Valley, Oregon
    Theoretically, yes. However, practically, there are many states that need the legislative kick in the booty to recognize that.
     
  17. jnojr

    jnojr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,095
    Location:
    Reston, VA
    So, you carry under that authority, right? In every state? You haven't sold out and paid the state's bribe for an illegal, unConstitutional CCW, have you? And you CCW your Glock 18, right?
     
  18. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Attention Retards and Illiterates!

    None of these bills centralize CCW.
    None of these bills make the federal government a license issuing authority. If you have a State CCW, you will still have it after such a bill.

    All the bills do is make it so that your state CCW counts everywhere in the united states. They enforce reciprocity, they dont regulate issuance.

    The biggest nitpick is that some of these bills have not recognized Vermont/Alaska carry nationwide, though some have provisions for it.

    The 2nd amendment is NOT a national concealed carry statute. You will get arrested if you try to exercise an unincorporated constitutional right in a place that outlaws it. It is no different than trying to have gay sex in Texas or Georgia before Lawrence v Texas. You do it at your own risk, fully prepared to spend thousands in legal costs. And the supreme court is currently a lot friendlier to sodomy than RKBA.
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    572
    JJY

    Would you feel better if they changed the basis from Commerce Clause to 14th Amendment?
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    572
    Explanation

    What I mean is: States disarming black citizens was an expressed purpose of the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, I cannot accept the "not allocated to the federal government" line of reasoning when it comes to legislation aimed at preventing states from interfering with rights.

    THIS is what the 14th Amendment is about, not sodomy and abortion (neither of which would have been recognized by the drafters and ratifiers of the amendment).

    Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not citizens and had no rights that a white man was bound to respect. To buttress the point, the Supreme Court clearly stated that blacks could not carry guns. Citizenship, it was concluded, would bring about all sorts of perceived "evils."

    "It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased. . . .and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

    Most of you would recognize this as the infamous Dred Scott decision.

    Following the Civil War, Congress adopted three Amendments to the Constitution directly bearing on the rights of citizens, including newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment, in particular, was aimed at stopping the states from interfering with the rights of citizens by granting the power to Congress to prevent state action that interfered with rights of citizenship.

    "Black codes" disarmed blacks throughout the south (among many other evils). Much of the disarming was direct, but some of the disarming was accomplished through indirect means. A permitting system was one of the indirect means utilized.

    The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted during debates in which Congress frequently referred to the Second Amendment as one of the rights which it intended to guarantee against state action.

    From Stephen Halbrook, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers' Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence, 5 J. on Firearms & Pub. Pol'y 7-28 (1993):

    Senator Jacob M. Howard in introducing the amendment to the Senate in 1866: "The personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as ... the right to keep and bear arms .... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

    . . .

    The same two-thirds of Congress which proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also passed an enactment declaring that the fundamental rights of "personal liberty" and "personal (p.17)security" include "the constitutional right to bear arms." Freedmen's Bureau Act, §14, 14 Stat. 176 (July 16, 1866). This Act, and the companion Civil Rights Act of 1866, sought to guarantee the same rights that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to protect.

    No court has ever considered Congress' declaration, contemporaneously with its adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the rights to personal security and personal liberty include the "constitutional right"--i.e., the right based on the Second Amendment--"to bear arms." Until now, this declaration in the Freedmen's Bureau Act has been completely unknown both to scholars and the courts

    . . .
    Senator Henry Wilson introduced a bill to disband the Southern state militias because they abused freedmen and "were engaged in disarming the negroes." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 914 (Feb. 19, 1866). Because of such complaints, Congress disbanded the Southern state militias. 15 Stat. 487 (Mar. 2, 1867).

    . . .

    A lengthy analysis of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, in Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665 (1978) relies on a speech by Representative John Bingham as follows: "Representative Bingham, for example, in discussing § 1 of the bill, explained that he had drafted § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment with the case of Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833), especially in mind." 436 U.S. at 686-87. On the same page of the speech where he mentioned Barron, Bingham characterized "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as one of the "limitations upon the power of the States ... made so by the Fourteenth Amendment." Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, Appendix 84 (Mar. 31, 1871). As the Court pointed out, "Representative Bingham, the author of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ... declared the bill's purpose to be 'the enforcement ... of the Constitution on behalf of every individual citizen of the Republic ... to the extent of the rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution." 436 U.S. at 685 n. 45.

    Another authority cited in Monell (id.) was Representative Henry L. Dawes, who stated on the pages referenced by the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment "has secured to [the citizen] the right to keep and bear arms in his defense." Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 475-76 (Apr. 5, 1871).

    End of quotes. Should you wish to read the whole thing (which I suggest), it is here: http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_saf-hal.html#fnb20

    There is more, and much linking "privileges or immunities" to rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but the post is getting long . . .




    Subsequent Supreme Court rulings, however, limited the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment in this regard more severely than its drafters could have contemplated.

    Given the original thrust of the Amendment, as it was intended by its drafters and not as it has been twisted by the Supreme Court, I humbly submit that Congress has the power to prevent state action to violate the Second Amendment.
     
  21. kludge

    kludge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Indiana
    Just my way of saying that the federal gov't. ought to stay out of CCW. My state has a law, your state has a law, if our state agree on reciprocity, so be it. The federal gov't has a law too -- it is not allowed to infringe.
     
  22. kludge

    kludge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Indiana
    Malum,

    this is intriguing to me, got any more links so I can read more about it?
     
  23. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    As some here keep saying...enforcement of Full Faith and Credit Clause has nothing to do with National CCW.

    It just means that if you have a license for your state, other states would HAVE to recognize it. How is that bad?
     
  24. kludge

    kludge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Indiana
    It's not 'bad' , but if they 'have power' to make a law to force it, then they also 'have power' to make a law to preclude it - or at least try.
     
  25. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    572
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page