New Federal Carry Bills On The Way

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speedo66

Speedo66

Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
11,076
Location
Flatlandistan
Saw this article that mentions there have been new bills in Congress in July with a big push for honoring other state's licenses. Yes, it has everything to do with the shooting at the practice ballgame. Seems Congress can't do enough to pass gun bills when they feel threatened.

Not sure at this point if the bills only benefit members of Congress, or also ordinary citizens. They want carry everywhere, including DC, with the exception of in the Capital building itself, or anywhere where the Pres. or VP are present. The bills also include ones re: silencers.

"Three bills introduced in the Republican-held House during the past two weeks would allow lawmakers to almost always carry a concealed weapon. A fourth would allow concealed carry permits obtained in other states to be recognized in the District of Columbia. Still another would eliminate federal controls on silencers."

Here's the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
 
"Oh I don't get to carry so my conservative representatives should continue to be victims because!"

Waiting to read reasoned responses to that.
 
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States”.
 
If federal law says you can carry in any state with a CCW law, then such as NJ tries to arrest you, well maybe you will become a millionaire once the lawsuits are settled. Might be worth it.

Deaf
 
"If federal law says you can carry in any state with a CCW law, then such as NJ tries to arrest you, well maybe you will become a millionaire once the lawsuits are settled. Might be worth it."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree. I doubt states can afford huge lawsuits. I wouldn't let those piss ants deter me from carrying.
Problem is, without uniform rules for carry, each state would be free to make it as difficult as possible to follow their laws.
 
Deaf Smith said:
If federal law says you can carry in any state with a CCW law, then such as NJ tries to arrest you, well maybe you will become a millionaire once the lawsuits are settled. Might be worth it.
Click to expand...
Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to force reciprocity on the states? Remember the 55 mph national speed limit? Setting speed limits is a prerogative of the states. The federal government has no authority outside of federal property like military bases. That didn't stop Congress from passing a law that allowed withholding of federal highway money from any state that did not enact and enforce the 55 limit. The states were blackmailed on the matter. I expect the same tactic will be necessary to force reciprocity.
 
Kendahl said:
Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to force reciprocity on the states? Remember the 55 mph national speed limit? Setting speed limits is a prerogative of the states. The federal government has no authority outside of federal property like military bases. That didn't stop Congress from passing a law that allowed withholding of federal highway money from any state that did not enact and enforce the 55 limit. The states were blackmailed on the matter. I expect the same tactic will be necessary to force reciprocity.
Click to expand...
Works for me.
 
Kendahl said:
Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to force reciprocity on the states?
Click to expand...

Yea. Google 'Drivers license' and 'marriage certificate'. See both of those are recognized across state lines. It's part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1). See, states are required to recognize the laws and legal documents of other states; such as birth certificates, marriage licenses, drivers licenses, and wills.

Deaf
 
If our Congress critters didn't spend so much of their careers weakening the second Amendment, then there would be no need for a bill allowing them to be armed at all. In a perfect world our representatives are not above their constituents. They need to go through the same approval they deem mandatory for us to be armed. No shortcuts, no special treatment. Let them play the sitting duck target a few more times for all I care. Maybe they will get the message.
 
Deaf Smith said:
Yea. Google 'Drivers license' and 'marriage certificate'. See both of those are recognized across state lines. It's part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1). See, states are required to recognize the laws and legal documents of other states; such as birth certificates, marriage licenses, drivers licenses, and wills.
Click to expand...
As you suggested, I did some poking around. Based on what I found, I don't think it's at all simple.

Use marriage as an example. The minimum age for marriage varies from state to state. If at least one person in a couple is too young in their home state, but not in another, the can legally marry in the other state. Their home state's position will be that they are married in the other state but not at home. Depending on age of consent, that could even lead to conviction for statutory rape.

I also found conflicting opinions regarding driver's licenses. One opinion was that reciprocity was required by the Constitution. Another said that it was strictly a pragmatic, voluntary agreement between states. How to handle out-of-state traffic violations is up to each state. Lose your driving privileges in one state and you have lost them in all. However, that's something the states do voluntarily, out of self interest, instead of a federal or constitutional requirement.
 
Kendahl said:
Use marriage as an example. The minimum age for marriage varies from state to state. If at least one person in a couple is too young in their home state, but not in another, the can legally marry in the other state. Their home state's position will be that they are married in the other state but not at home. Depending on age of consent, that could even lead to conviction for statutory rape.
Click to expand...

Which would not exist for firearms, as much. While there are varying ages for firearm ownership when it comes to gifted firearms, federal law mandates being 18 or older to buy rifles and shotguns. 21 and older to buy handguns. There is enough federal regulation in place for firearms to allow reciprocity among the states, more so than exists for marriage. Some states, without intervention from the federal government, have carry reciprocity with more than a dozen states. The only reason for the federal government to get involved at this point is to sway rabid anti gun states like Hawaii, New York, California, New Jersey etc.
 
Kendahl wrote:
Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to force reciprocity on the states?
Click to expand...

No.

But, as you went on to note, the Federal Government has many ways of "strong arming" or "bribing" states into enacting laws consistent with a Federal priority.

In this case, I suspect the bill will be limited to just saying something along the lines of if you can carry in your home state, you can carry in certain areas of DC, an area which Congress does control directly. That still makes it problematic for anyone who might be carrying in the DC area since it's very easy to end up in Virginia or Maryland before you know it.
 
Deaf Smith said:
Yea. Google 'Drivers license' and 'marriage certificate'. See both of those are recognized across state lines. It's part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1). See, states are required to recognize the laws and legal documents of other states; such as birth certificates, marriage licenses, drivers licenses, and wills.

Deaf
Click to expand...


Nope. This has been discussed quite a bit here and Frank has given details as to why.

It is more complicated. States are NOT required to honor driver licenses.... but they do largely because the Feds convinced them by with holding money if they didnt.

States don't (none that I know of) honor licenses to practice law or medicine from other states, for example.
 
Deaf Smith said:
Actually it is. Think FOPA... Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. And all states do adhere to it.

Deaf
Click to expand...
Well, some more than others. In some states such as New Jersey or New York, FOPA is an affirmative defense to the charge of illegal possession of a firearm. You will be arrested, you will be charged, and you will appear in court, at which time you can assert FOPA and provide evidence that FOPA applied to you.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150101/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation
 
Kendahl said:
Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to force reciprocity on the states?
Click to expand...

Using the Gun Free School Zones as a guide, the Federal Government would simply need to assert it's (over extended and abused, in my opinion) authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Something along the lines of "no State shall prohibit an individual from carrying a firearm that has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce if the individual possesses a permit issued by another state."
 
Re: interstate commerce, this is how they worded it in the HR218/LEOSA bill to preclude states from denying it:

‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any
State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is
a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identi-
fication required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm
that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign com-
merce,.........."
 
We're getting way ahead of ourselves. If health and tax bills are stuck in legislative limbo, gun bills are even more so. The administration has more pressing matters to worry about right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top