probability of a federal CCW?

[Tallinar]

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

This would be the way to do it, if anything.

 

[stchman]

Here's a thought.

If the federal government want to do the CCW thing have all 50 states vote on it.

If the majority of the states agree then federal CCW. Tells Illinois, NY, Maryland, California, that they have to allow their law abiding citizens the right to CCW.

Now if a new administration comes into power and wants to then remove the federal CCW, ok, they have to get the majority of the states to go along with it.

Problem solved, states and federal government work TOGETHER not apart.

 

[galapoola]

May not be able to repeal w/o majority of states but . . .
That doesn't mean someone can't mess with it.
Imagine a good Federal CCW that all 50 states must honor, then imagine what congress can do by dicking with it.
It may start off as a well meaning law but it doesn't haven't be repealed to be rendered impotent

 

[mortablunt]

I just thought of something horrifying: what if you have to register a gun that you would carry assuming we ever get a national carry license?

 

[Madcap_Magician]

It sounds cool, but I think it opens up the doors to all kinds of terrible things.

 

[TexasBill]

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?

The Supreme Court's hedging is not, strictly speaking, supported by the Constitution which allows no infringement. The Court is substituting prior decisions upholding laws for the law itself (this, by the way, is very common).

As was pointed out in another post, the federal government has already made it legal for active and retired law enforcement officers to carry their weapons in most places, despite countervailing local or state laws. Therefore, the federal government has already exercised its ability to regulate the Second Amendment, meaning it could choose to exercise it in other areas, as well, like nationwide CCW permitting.

 

[TexasBill]

Here's a thought.

If the federal government want to do the CCW thing have all 50 states vote on it.

If the majority of the states agree then federal CCW. Tells Illinois, NY, Maryland, California, that they have to allow their law abiding citizens the right to CCW.

Now if a new administration comes into power and wants to then remove the federal CCW, ok, they have to get the majority of the states to go along with it.

Problem solved, states and federal government work TOGETHER not apart.

That's what Congress is supposed to do. The representatives and senators are supposed to be acting for their states. Getting 50 state legislatures to agree on anything would be darn near impossible. The Equal Rights Amendment failed because not enough states would ratify it in the time allowed.

 

[oneounceload]

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.

But yet driver's licenses, marriage certificates (gay excluded at the moment) ARE honored by other states

 

[Sam1911]

ARE, but not under any federal legal requirement.

States may decide to do something, but forcing them to do so brings up a serious Constitutional question or two.

(And when you say "gay excluded at the moment" you prove the point! )

 

[Jonah71]

BIG +1 to that - then all it would take is some BS "Executive Order" (i.e. dictatorial fiat) to eliminate CCW once and for all.

We need LESS Federal involvement in our lives, not more

They are in our business and lives too much as it is. Leave me and my guns alone!

 

[towboat_er]

Im guessing the feds want this so that later they can take it all away.

 

[azmjs]

There's no such thing as "the feds" in some monolithic, enduring sense when you're talking about proposed legislation.

Republicans in Congress are doing this either in order to buy support from parts of the electorate, or else because they think it's the right thing to do.

It's not part of some paranoid conspiracy to somehow abolish CCW.

I don't see any need for 'full faith and credit' reciprocity for CCW, and congress imposing it might not even be constitutional.

However, it is a good place to strike a compromise. "national ccw" in exchange for full faith and credit to gay married couples.

 

[tyeo098]

There's no such thing as "the feds" in some monolithic, enduring sense when you're talking about proposed legislation.

Republicans in Congress are doing this either in order to buy support from parts of the electorate, or else because they think it's the right thing to do.

It's not part of some paranoid conspiracy to somehow abolish CCW.

I don't see any need for 'full faith and credit' reciprocity for CCW, and congress imposing it might not even be constitutional.

However, it is a good place to strike a compromise. "national ccw" in exchange for full faith and credit to gay married couples.

I'm all for guns & gays, but usually compromise comes with restrictions.
E.g. National CCW, but all firearms must be registered on the license (make, model, serial & calibre, a la NY)

One thing to consider: What if it was added as an additional option?
You could go through your state (or Florida ) to get a card recognized by a few (or a lot) of other states, OR
You could jump through the federal hoops and restrictions to get National Carry Card, and go through ALL 50 states and the District!
(Unless somehow the District, NYC, LA&SANFRAN become "sensitive areas")

 

[Warp]

Just say NO to the federal legislature being involed in this.

 

[mgregg85]

Hoping for the federal government to control CCW is like happily throwing yourself down the proverbial slippery slope. Give them the power to allow it and you will have set the framework for them to take it away. Leave this issue to the states.

 

[azmjs]

I'm all for guns & gays, but usually compromise comes with restrictions.
E.g. National CCW, but all firearms must be registered on the license (make, model, serial & calibre, a la NY)

One thing to consider: What if it was added as an additional option?
You could go through your state (or Florida ) to get a card recognized by a few (or a lot) of other states, OR
You could jump through the federal hoops and restrictions to get National Carry Card, and go through ALL 50 states and the District!
(Unless somehow the District, NYC, LA&SANFRAN become "sensitive areas")

Using 'full faith and credit' to enact national CCW wouldn't easily allow for a restriction like that. It pretty much means that each state must recognize the licenses issued by other states, like they do now with drivers licenses.

Rather than creating anything central or federal, "full faith and credit" just forces states to cooperate with one another.

Full Faith and Credit wouldn't allow for a national anything card, any more than people are required now to get "national drivers licenses" or "national marriage licenses," it's a decentralized thing.

Since the two "full faith and credit" controversies of our time, gay marriage and concealed gun licenses have respective proponents on different sides, but essentially of one mind on how full faith and credit should be applied, it is the perfect opportunity for a good compromise.

Liberals get gay civil rights across the country, and conservatives in return for agreeing to something they dislike, get national CCW reciprocity, which the liberals don't like.

Our nation was founded on compromise, serious, deep, profound compromise.

 

[azmjs]

Hoping for the federal government to control CCW is like happily throwing yourself down the proverbial slippery slope. Give them the power to allow it and you will have set the framework for them to take it away. Leave this issue to the states.

Do you have examples of Full Faith and Credit being used by the federal government to "take away" anything else that it applies to? Drivers Licenses? marriage perhaps? I'm curious.

Full Faith and Credit is a reciprocity scheme, it does not hand control to anyone.

 

[oneounceload]

Why do so many here STILL believe the central Federal government is the best thing going and want to allow those idiots control over your ability to carry?

The Feds have screwed the pooch in EVERY single program they attempted to control from the states

 

[tyeo098]

So this bill just makes CCW permits like Drivers licenses?
Have any of us actually READ the bill, rather than making tinfoil-hat conjecture?

Looks like I've got some reading to do.

Azmjs - I HIGHLY doubt that the conservatives will let "the big one" by on a compromise for CCW reciprocity. Kinda like wives, they only does "THAT" when they REALLY want something.

EDIT: Heres what the official down-low is:

2/18/2011--Introduced.National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state, and who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, to carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.

NO FEDERAL DATABASE
NO FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS
Essentially, if you have your DL (or any photo ID) and your CCW Permit (Florida or otherwise) You can carry in any state in the union, save for "sensitive areas" and any other no-go places according to the states statutes.

This is a good thing people!

 

[Warp]

It is not a good thing. The federal legislature does not actually have the authority to do this. They should not be doing this.

 

[tyeo098]

It is not a good thing. The federal legislature does not actually have the authority to do this. They should not be doing this.

Wanna bet?

The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

Take a gander: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text

 

[Warp]

So your argument is that since congress says they have the power to do something...they do? That is some screwed up logic right there. The interstate commerce card is way, WAY over played and improperly utilized already. No need to make it worse.


IIRC interstate commerce is the reason I cannot construct a machine gun in my basement in my state entirely from parts and materials that originated in my state. But hey, congress says that is legit so it must be.

 

[tyeo098]

So your argument is that since congress says they have the power to do something...they do? That is some screwed up logic right there. The interstate commerce card is way, WAY over played and improperly utilized already. No need to make it worse.

If they're going to use it and abuse it, might as well use it for our side once and while eh?



Also
No carry in IL [Still!] (and one other state, bill says 48 states allow ccw by some means, whats the other?)

One of the requirements to carry in a State:

(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

So until IL actually gets some CCW laws, nobody will be CCW'ing there other than the cops 'n' robbers.

 

[Warp]

If they're going to use it and abuse it, might as well use it for our side once and while eh?

I guess this is one way we differ. I do not support illegal laws simply because they happen to be what I want at the time.

I also don't trust the federal government with more power.

 

[tyeo098]

I guess this is one way we differ. I do not support illegal laws simply because they happen to be what I want at the time.

I also don't trust the federal government with more power.

The Interstate Commerce clause is in the Constitution. Like it or not. How congress chooses to enact it is up to the congressmen&women.

And you didnt read the bill, did you?

This gives the .gov no more power than it already has.
It just says that states must honor other states permits like they do with DL's.

It even says IN THE BILL TEXT

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.