National Right-To-Carry Bill

[The Real Hawkeye]

As am I, but the lesser of two goods is still pretty good, and more likely to be accomplished.

I am glad to see you have come around to this way of thinking hawkeye. I think I remember you were shooting steam out your ears the last time this came up about how it violated states rights.

Beerslurpy, I have always been able to see and appreciate both sides to this particular debate. My present position remains consistent with the States' Rights position in that this is an exercise of Federal power which is, I argue, in fact Constitutionally delegated, i.e., to require all States to give full faith and credit to the public acts of all other States. I believe, however, that if a State government chooses not to allow concealed carry for its own residents, Full Faith and Credit does not interfere with this State power. Those States denying such authority to their citizens, however, could be required, consistent with Full Faith and Credit, to allow citizens from other States who possess a license, or citizens of States whose laws do not require one, to travel into those States carrying their CCW.

 

[Gatman]

Thanks lonnie, that is exactly my thinking as well.

The anti-gunners do not need a well-intentioned pro-gun statute to justify writing anti-gun statutes. They will plow ahead without any regard for what we have done or what the constitution says if they regain power.

I think national vermont friendly CCW reciprocity would be a HUGE win for all americans, especially those living in communist occupied territory (CA/NY/NJ/MA/etc).

Any california gunnies who want to rent out some sleeping space in my garage to establish FL residency are welcome, if only to screw with Bill Lockyer.

How about Illinois gunners? Just so I can flaunt my permit in the face of Mayor Daley.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

How about Illinois gunners? Just so I can flaunt my permit in the face of Mayor Daley.

Yeah, for those of us in states where CCW is going to be difficult or impossible, obviously, we tend to favor this type of bill, despite some of the potential down-sides.

Can someone give me a hint on how likely this thing is? It seems like if it doesn't pass now, it may never be able to. Our next pres might be a dem, the house might change in the next election, etc.

 

[LAK]

I think it is true that if the feds want to get rid of CCW, they won't need this bill to give them jurisdiction. But in court, this bill would give jursdiction to a federal court if no other federal questions were raised. Just something to consider. On the other hand, if one state that doesn't allow "same sex" marriages is forced to honor that marriage from another state, why shouldn't the same apply to CCW. Then on the other hand.....wait, that's 3 hands...nevermind.

The root problem is Federal involvement from the start.

I do not see any avenue for getting any case concerning say, an individual "carrying an open or concealed weapon in Vermont", into a Federal court. Unless the person had commited a crime on property belonging to, under the control of or otherwise falling under partial or exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government. And the alleged crime was not simply "carrying a handgun somewhere in Vermont".

Sure the Federal court might invent jurisdiction over anything; they have a track record of doing just that. The real peril is it's universal acceptance when it does.

It follows that anything that opens an invitation to Federal jurisdiction over the nationwide licensing, restrictions, regulation and taxation of carrying firearms will lead to more licensing, restrictions, regulation and taxation of carrying firearms.
--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org