probability of a federal CCW?

[Ramman911]

Frontline seems a "TAD" over priced to me. I got a Florida, Utah and Iowa CCW permits for a total of $100.00 (Granted my DD-214 got some fees waived).

I hope that the CCW NEVER EVER gets in the hands of one central federal control. That would be the beginning of the end for sure.

 

[TexasBill]

Folks, the barn door is open and that horse is already gone: CCW reciprocity is in the hands of the federal government now. The Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago established the primacy of the federal government through the Fourteenth Amendment of U.S. Constitution. Firearms are sold, shipped and carried across state lines and all the federal government has to do is pre-empt all state laws pertaining to the ability of citizens to transport weapons across state lines and what they can do in the states.

Frankly, the U.S. government has the power to strictly enforce the Second Amendment, since it has already been determined that it applies to the states. It won't happen but Congress could take Ted Nugent at his word and say it is illegal to regulate the bearing of arms at all, overturning all state laws.

 

[brickeyee]

Folks, the barn door is open and that horse is already gone: CCW reciprocity is in the hands of the federal government now.

No it is not.

No case has made its way into the court system, and every ruling has allowed 'regulation.'

The issue now is to fight out what that regulation is.

 

[Birch Knoll]

It won't happen but Congress could take Ted Nugent at his word and say it is illegal to regulate the bearing of arms at all, overturning all state laws.

Well, somebody hasn't read DC V. Heller.

 

[TexasBill]

On the contrary, I did read DC v Heller; both the ruling and the dissent. The important decision here isn't Heller, it's McDonald v Chicago when the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment is binding on the states. The court effectively preempted existing laws.

Please note that I said "Congress" not "Supreme Court." With the decision that federal law trumps bans, it follows that Congress can pass legislation that enforces the strict meaning of the Second Amendment. Instead of using the Commerce Clause, Congress could also look to the Tenth Amendment and assert the Second Amendment reserves the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not the federal government nor any political subdivision of the United States. Under that rationale, the Supreme Court would have a difficult time legally overturning such legislation as it has already ruled the Constitution is the governing document and outranks state laws and local ordinances. The hedges mentioned in the majority decision are not, in fact, strictly constitutional as the Second Amendment does not define limits on RKBA. As Ted Nugent said, the Second Amendment is his permit.

Do I think this will happen? Not a chance; no way politicians are going to give up that much power. What I wanted to point out is the federal government already has the legal means to make itself the sole source of firearms regulation.

 

[Birch Knoll]

On the contrary, I did read DC v Heller; both the ruling and the dissent.

Then you'll recognize this bit:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

​

The Court has clearly said that States can place various conditions and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, just as there may be restrictions and regulation surrounding freedom of speech or the right to vote. You don't believe the Federal Government has pre-empted the States ability to regulate speech, do you?

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I've got an easier solution, get rid of all laws prohibting CCW and even Open Carry. Then we are all set in all states.

 

[mortablunt]

^ I like that. While we're at it too, can we get rid of the 1968 GCA, the 1986 FOPA, and the 1989 Import Ban as well as make Assault Weapons laws illegal and extend the Full Faith And Credit Clause to extend to gun rights and ownership too?

Probably never, because the political folks who normally back Constitutional gun rights also tend to be the same people who forget all about the Necessary and Proper clause and the Supremacy Clause and then trumped States' Rights. It just isn't happening unless gun rights becomes everyone's agenda and good luck with that.

 

[brickeyee]

The court effectively preempted existing laws.

No, they placed the states on warning that challenges might occur.

Laws are only preempted by specific court rulings.

 

[Bubba613]

I've got an easier solution, get rid of all laws prohibting CCW and even Open Carry. Then we are all set in all states

That'll happen about the time Ron Paul becomes president.

 

[livewire98801]

I dunno... I kinda like HR-822. The wording needs cleaned up a bit, but it mostly just forces states that issue CCW permits (49 of them) to recognize any CCW permit issued by any other state. No national permit, no federal database.

I wish the courts would do it... They could, it's in the Constitution.

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Of course the greatest allies that we have in the 2a fight are the political conservatives, even though I don't subscribe to the idea that liberals all hate guns or the 2a, its obvious that more conservatives support our gun rights than liberals. Conservatives don't support the idea of gay marriage (as an example, obviously not a black and white issue), and if you enforce Art4/Sec1, than any marriage in any state would have to be accepted and enforced by any other state. I'm sure if you could be a fly on the wall when driver licensing became common, that's the constitutional discussion that came up when one state first decided to recognize a license issued by another state.

I would really like to see the Federal Government fall back to it's Constitutional duties, protect the borders, handle wars, and protect the rights of the people, and otherwise stay out of our lives. No, I'm not holding my breath



Also, the famed Privileges and Immunities clause, which the SCOUTS refused to consider in McDonald, which would have made things more definite:

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[armsmaster270]

It has already become a law for active & retired L.E. Officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

 

[livewire98801]

It has already become a law for active & retired L.E. Officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

Yes... as my retired LEO uncle continually reminds me when I talk about going to California...

 

[kozak6]

Quote:
I've got an easier solution, get rid of all laws prohibting CCW and even Open Carry. Then we are all set in all states

That'll happen about the time Ron Paul becomes president.

That sounds about right.

On the federal level, the impression I get is that most Washington politicians who support gun rights really only do so as lip service when it is of political convenience as a smokescreen or red herring issue rather than as a goal in itself.

Any radical change such as national CCW isn't possible within the foreseeable future.

 

[Twiki357]

According to a NRA-ILA post, there is a hearing this Tuesday (9/13/2011) in the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security for H.R. 822, that would require states to recognize each others CCW's.

Here is a link to their post.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7072

 

[Bubba613]

I see a compromise brewing with gay marriage.
THe feds don't really need to be messing with states' rights.

 

[Birch Knoll]

I see a compromise brewing with gay marriage.
THe feds don't really need to be messing with states' rights.

Heh. That reminds me of Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit's sentiment that "I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons."

Works for me.

 

[langenc]

Maybe you should discuss with your elected (state) persons..

Get your gub club to do it as a group.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Article on National Carry Reciprocity: Are you for or against it?

.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ty-backed-by-243-members-of-u-s-congress.html

Concealed Guns Backed by 243 in U.S. House


By John Crewdson - Sep 11, 2011 11:01 PM CT


If Congress adopts a bill that the National Rifle Association is pushing, Florida’s licenses would apply to 49 states in all -- allowing their holders to carry hidden guns in places such as midtown Manhattan, where the New York Police Department rejects most such applications for “concealed- carry” permits.

It appears that this National Carry Reciprocity may pass.




Are you for or against it and why?



.

 

[manithree]

I'm for it. According to the Constitution, fedzilla is explicitly authorized to do this sort of thing:

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 

[mortablunt]

I wonder why that one is often ignored. It seems as though things like the carry permit things should be nationwide.

 

[Sam1911]

It is often "ignored" because there is a balancing act going on between Article IV, Sec.1 "full faith and credit" clause and the 10th Amendment which recognizes that all powers not delegated to the federal government are held by the states or by the people.

If Congress writes a law that says State A must recognize the powers authorized by a license granted by State B, when those powers would violate the laws of, or do not conform to the requirements of State A, Congress is removing the right of State A to enforce its own laws on that subject.

This does infringe the 10th Amendment, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the language of the specific federal law in question.

As an example...

Utah requires all it's prospective permit holders to take and pass a specific test before it will grant them the ability to carry a concealed weapon. Utah does not feel that a permit holder from Nebraska (just for example) has been required to meet a sufficient standard to carry a concealed firearm within Utah. This law would remove the ability of Utah to create and enforce its own law to that effect.

Taken as absolute values, those two sections of the Constitution in some ways directly conflict. The legislature and the courts try to balance the two competing principles, and each time one or the other principle comes out the loser.

 

[mortablunt]

My statement was that if one state gives you a carry permit, then that permit ought to be viable in all states because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes. And my reply was to explain why that isn't necessarily THE only Constitutionally valid way of looking at the problem.

As I said...

Taken as absolute values, those two sections of the Constitution in some ways directly conflict. The legislature and the courts try to balance the two competing principles, and each time one or the other principle comes out the loser.

As has been pointed out before, Congress doesn't force State A to recognize the right of an engineer licensed by State B to practice in State A. Congress doesn't even force the states to recognize each others' driver's licenses.

Congress COULD try to pass legislation to say that any requirements or preconditions placed by the states on the right of a person to be armed when and where they choose are direct infringements on the 2nd Amendment and are thus illegal, but forcing the states to recognize any and all credentials issued by other states is a Constitutionally knottier issue.

 

[Midwest]

With a Federal CCW Be careful what you ask for

We have to be concerned where this all will lead. Lets for a second call it a 'Federal Carry Permit'. With it you could carry open and concealed in all the States. So what if they put in the requirements that you have to have this permit for open carry. In some states, like Kentucky; it is possible to open carry right now without a permit.

So what if some laws were amended to make this 'permit' the only one that will be recognized and the state issued ones null and void. Lets say it happens. So in theory with this new permit, I would have to have one in order to open carry in KY?

Keep in mind down the line they could just add more conditions to the carry permit say to suit non pro 2A states like NJ. Maybe a restriction on caliber, it has to be holstered, mandatory gun locks while carrying in certain areas (you could carry, but the gun has to be locked).


Since this will be a federal permit, I have to assume it will have the same rights and restrictions across the land. I would assume some things that we take for granted now in Pro 2A States now could get eroded with this scheme. There will have to be some accommodations made to satisfy less than Pro 2A States. One size fits all?

I am all for all people to be to carry and protect themselves in any state. But lets be careful, very careful that the proposed "Federal Carry Permit" just doesn't just end up being a "National Gun License" in disguise. In one fell swoop,once this is in place. The 'powers that be' could just ban open and concealed carry and require all gun owners to get this permit just to keep their firearms. Then later on raise the cost of the permit and have more conditions and restrictions connected to it.

Just registered and is my first post here, though I have been reading the THR forum for a long time.