So you want national CCW permits? Expect: federal guidelines, regulations

[Robert Hairless]

Lonnie Wilson and LGN:

You're right. These two bills are entirely to the benefit of people with concealed weapons permits in any state. It's hard to understand why anyone with a CWP would not support these bills and work for their passage.

They allow CWP holders to travel freely in their own country without becoming criminals if they cross into a state that does not issue permits to non residents or even to their own residents. A tourist with a CWP who wants to see his own nation's capitol is immediately criminalized when he drives into Washingon, D.C.--which is among the most dangerous cities in this country. These bills allow him and her the chance to protect their lives and their family's lives.

The bills do not create a national concealed carry permit and they do not create a new slippery slope by which aliens who want to put fluorides in the water and abduct our womenfolk can create a national concealed carry permit.

These bills simply require all states to recognize other states' concealed weapons permits just as they recognize other states' drivers licenses. CWP holders from other states would still have to obey the laws in every state they visit.

When a federal law benefits all of the nation's citizens, it's more than a little crazy to make a "states rights" argument against it. That kind of objection would return this country to the golden age of slavery, revoke the right of women to vote, allow states to reinstitute child labor and permit foods to be adulterated, and probably turn many of this forum's members into homeless paupers.

I frankly enjoy reading arguments that any federal legislation--even if it benefits gun owners--is an infringement upon the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution as worded by the federal convention that passed this federal contract. I don't think I would be one of the people who enjoyed watching the antics of lunatics when tourists treated insane asylums as places for entertainment, but I can't be sure and I recognize that there is fun in watching people bounce off the walls.

Bottom line. If you encounter some law that you believe violates your Second Amendment rights and if you think it violates your Second Amendment rights to benefit from any law that protects you, do what you believe is right and don't hide it. So if you truly think that it is an infringement of your Second Amendment rights to have a federal law requiring all states to recognize your CWP, don't take advantage of it if you are wrongly arrested for carrying without a permit. Be a man. Go to court, argue that your permit should not have been recognized, but that you are protected by the Second Amendment. My understanding is that many states provide nice places to live, good food, and lovely drugs for people who think that way. While you're inside, be sure to argue that you have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the funny farm. The doctors and attendants work hard and deserve a good laugh too.

There is no downside to these bills for rational people. Or even for irrational people. Not even if they are "undiagnosed lunatics."

Outlaw Man:

The basis of your objection to such a law is that it doesn't help you any. That's the way a great many other selfish gun owners think too: they're not interested in anything that doesn't benefit them personally. Sarah Brady loves you. You help her do the work she's doing.

 

[pacodelahoya]

I thought there was already federal regulations on carrying a firearm?

It goes somthing like..."shall not be infringed."

Goes to show how much I know right?

 

[Robert Hairless]

pacodelahoya:

I thought there was already federal regulations on carrying a firearm?

It goes somthing like..."shall not be infringed."

Goes to show how much I know right?

Good for you. You're on top of things. So don't acknowledge the existence of any federal laws that you believe violate your rights. Tell your friends too. Don't do anything that violates your own principles either. If a federal law grants you rights that you think violates the Constitution or your principles, don't accept the benefits of those laws. Show them the kind of stuff you're made of!

 

[alan]

Strikes me that there is a very large difference between National Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses and RECIPROCITY amongst the several states. If one looks with any degree of care, it becomes obvious that it is the latter circumastance that is sought.

Each of the states issues Drivers Licenses, and last time I noticed, The Pennsylvania Drivers License I currently possess is recognized, without question, throughout the rest of the nation. Any possible reason for the situation being different with Concealed Carry Licenses or Permits escapes me, for nowhere, so far as I understand are such licenses issued to felons or other "proscribed persons".

 

[romma]

So don't acknowledge the existence of any federal laws that you believe violate your rights.

So you would be okay to open carry a handgun or an AR-15 rifle down 5th Ave New York,NY with this line of thinking? Are you willing to go that far to prove your rights are violated? Do you have a concealed permit for any state now?

 

[Outlaw Man]

I love what this law is trying to do. I think it would be a great thing as I would love to visit places like New York, California, and D.C. This doesn't negate the fact that the government is abusing its power. If they can pass a law like this they can also pass a law restricting reciprocity for all states.

You can't have it one way - either the federal government isn't allowed to make legislation on concealed carry or they can make any legislation concerning CCWs. This business of letting them make "good" laws outside their Constitutional power is most of what got us where our gun rights/privalegs are today.

I wish we could have national reciprocity, but the only legal way to do it is with a Constitutional amendment.

I never expected many people to be fond of my strict constructionist views.



The "state's rights" argument is moot - slavery, women's sufferage, etc. were accomplished by Constitutional amendments.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Mr. Hairless,

I have no choice but to aknowledge federal laws.

Nope, won't violate my principals.

Now federal law grants rights ?

I already have the rights without the laws.

(never did I say it wasn't a good idea, just trying to point out the absurdity of making laws that are already covered by our basic rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. I understand the whole incremental thing, sheesh.)

 

[bruss01]

I think that nationwide reciprocity would be a good thing.

It would allow a lot of people in restrictive states a chance to get permits, even if they had to obtain those permits from another state.

This practice would lead the remaining "may issue" states to rethink their stance, given that a resident could obtain a Utah or Florida permit and carry anyway, why not do it local and pocket the fees?

States that currently have "lax" CCW requirements could offer 2 classes of permit. A "native only" permit that is honored within the state of residence, and a "nationwide" permit that one would have to take a class or do other things to meet the minimum nationwide criteria. Folks who live in the middle of the state and rarely if ever need to carry in another state could enjoy the ease and convenience of a native permit, while those who frequently cross state lines could pony up the extra effort to qualify for the nationwide permit.

If you think the Feds don't already have a list of gun owners, or at least a VERY VERY good start on one, you're kidding yourself. Between NICS checks, credit card sweeps, and 100's of other arguably illegal sources, they have access to all the data they want. All it takes is a "national security letter" or even as little as a badge flash and an intimidating expression and most businesses and organizations will simply roll over, with the assurances that the data will only be held for a short time, or only certain portions of it relevant to the case will be used. Hogwash. They have all the data they could ever want and it is next to effortless to get more if they so desire.

Do you wonder about hackers who get caught where they ought not to be, what they end up doing? Nobody wins if they rot in jail, I bet the feds hire them as independent contractors who can work off part of their sentence as a court agreed "plea bargain". The data gets slipped under someone's door, late at night so they can cite a tip from an anonymous source. <adjusts tinfoil hat>

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

You can't have it one way - either the federal government isn't allowed to make legislation on concealed carry or they can make any legislation concerning CCWs. This business of letting them make "good" laws outside their Constitutional power is most of what got us where our gun rights/privalegs are today.

But if the law simply forced states to recognize CCWs of other states as they do with drivers licenses and they decided to "restrict reciprocity" we wouldn't be any worse off than we are now would we? I've never heard of the federal government taking away someone's state-issued drivers license (although the state can, like they can with a CCW license).
I'm frustrated by the fact I can't go into the state to my north or to my south with my CCW.

 

[Outlaw Man]

We would be worse off if they restricted it everywhere. There are nearly 20 states I can carry in with only my local license. 20 is much better than none.

I don't want my gun rights subject to the whims of an ever-changing (and increasingly liberal) federal government.

 

[Robert Hairless]

romma:

So you would be okay to open carry a handgun or an AR-15 rifle down 5th Ave New York,NY with this line of thinking? Are you willing to go that far to prove your rights are violated? Do you have a concealed permit for any state now?

Me? Not a chance. But I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about people with principles, who believe that the Second Amendment is all they need or should need.

But I also don't believe that my splendid personality is sufficent to prevent overhead pigeons from dropping their poop on my head, even though my most cherished principle absolutely prohibits such outrages.

I'm the kind of unprincpled guy who wants the law on my side instead of against me. Other people might be embarrassed to admit such lack of principle but I'm just an old, grumpy, rural white male with no pride at all.

Which, by the way, is how I got to be old.

 

[shield20]

So what are our options?

a)Accept and deal with the state laws that we have, no matter how unnconstitutional, and hope the USSC will some day actually admit that the 14th does indeed include the 2nd, and that the 2nd does indeed protect an individual right, in any way shape or form, and ALL conflicting gun laws, at whatever level, are null and void.

b)Hope S.388 passes, and take advantage of the fed legislature forcing the states to recognize Article IV section 2 in a limited way where my privileges in NY must be recognized by every other state, and vis-versa; at the same time having the fed legislature further(?) acknowledge and condone the states as having the power to legislate arms.

Tough call.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Outlaw Man:

We would be worse off if they restricted it everywhere. There are nearly 20 states I can carry in with only my local license. 20 is much better than none.

I don't want my gun rights subject to the whims of an ever-changing (and increasingly liberal) federal government.

You prefer to have your gun rights subject to the whims of an ever-changing (and increasingly liberal) set of 50 states. You think it's better to fight the same fight with 50 sets of laws instead of 1 set of laws. As you said in your earlier post on this subject, you're not interested in visiting the "slave states," so expanded recognition of concealed carry permits doesn't interest you because it doesn't benefit you. It only benefits other people. Who cares about them as long as you're okay.

Got it.

 

[the naked prophet]

It's hard to understand why anyone with a CWP would not support these bills and work for their passage.

Because look how the feds mess with the drivers license. They added extra requirements to the drivers license with the REAL ID act. If they mandate reciprocity for CCW licenses, they can do the same with those. Maybe they'll require a birth certificate, maybe a yearly psychologist checkup (and maybe from a US AG-certified psychologist), maybe mandated training similar to what is required for pilots to carry on planes (and remember how they're avoiding letting anyone carry on a plane?).

They allow CWP holders to travel freely in their own country without becoming criminals if they cross into a state that does not issue permits to non residents or even to their own residents. A tourist with a CWP who wants to see his own nation's capitol is immediately criminalized when he drives into Washingon, D.C.--which is among the most dangerous cities in this country. These bills allow him and her the chance to protect their lives and their family's lives.

So what would stop those states and districts (which are so anti-gun that they don't have any permit which allows anybody to carry concealed) from passing a CCW permit law and then adding a list of restricted locations that included city streets, all parking lots, all public property, all private property without written permission of the owner, all businesses, etc. Remember, you have to abide by the local laws as to restricted locations, carry method, and legal type of weapon. For that matter, what would stop the state or district from forbidding carry of any caliber greater than .17 HM2 (remember, Oklahoma forbids any caliber greater than .45) or some wildcat .10 caliber that nobody owns? What's to stop them from requiring a solid steel holster which includes a combination padlock to hold the gun in it (remember Georgia requires guns be carried in holsters, no reason someone else couldn't specify what kind of holster)? There's all kinds of ways around this poorly-thought out bill.

These bills simply require all states to recognize other states' concealed weapons permits just as they recognize other states' drivers licenses. CWP holders from other states would still have to obey the laws in every state they visit.

See above re: feds mandating more requirements for drivers licenses, and state laws changing to de facto outlaw carry even with this new federal law.

There is no downside to these bills for rational people.

There is no benefit to anyone but the feds. Most states either recognize other states permits or issue out of state permits. Most of the states which do not, would immediately pass laws on restricted carry locations which would de facto ban concealed carry in spite of the new federal CCW reciprocity law.

There is no upside to this bill for anybody but the feds.

The basis of your objection to such a law is that it doesn't help you any. That's the way a great many other selfish gun owners think too: they're not interested in anything that doesn't benefit them personally. Sarah Brady loves you. You help her do the work she's doing.

And your argument for the law is any different? You want to carry in a few more states, and to get that you're willing to allow federal regulation of STATE issued CCW permits (the same way they regulate state issued drivers licenses, but probably stricter)? You're like a hunter who'll push for a law banning all handguns and "assault weapons" for a federal limit on the cost of a deer tag. Sarah Brady dangles a "fun-size" candy bar in front of you and steals your four-course banquet while you're still trying to get the cellophane off.

I hope you enjoy it.

 

[romma]

Which, by the way, is how I got to be old.

I understand now hairless.!

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

Thank you Lonnie and Robert. The paranoia over this bill is amazing and unfortunate. This is a good bill in every respect.

Look they already have the power to flat-out ban in-state simple possession of firearms. They banned in-state possession of new MGs in 1986. They banned in-state simple possession of many popular rifles in 1994. At the same time they banned in-state possession of new standard-capacity magazines. Whatever gave them the authority to do those things also gives them the authority to ban possession of ALL handguns if they want to. You're all right, it is a shame that they have this authority. People should have taken to the streets and (sarcasm alert) burned down the Whitehouse in 1934 and then again in 1968 and then again in 1986 and then again in 1994 (note, I'm being sarcastic here, and I'm not actually advocating that anyone burn down anything, past present or future). Oh well it didn't happen any of those times. Now we are in a situation where these things are all federally regulated and within that situation this bill doesn't give up anything. It's purely a win.

What we need to really win is a Supreme Court decision that says that the 2nd amend is an individual right to own militia (modern infantry) weapons, and that right cannot be infringed by government at any level. I won't hold my breath for that ruling! In the meantime this is a great bill so we should support it. Let's do realistic things that make real progress rather than hoping for perfection. Anti-gunners have been chipping away with small steps for decades now. We need to chip within the reality we have because we aren't suddenly going to have a total victory SCOTUS ruling or anything else.

 

[romma]

We need to chip within the reality we have because we aren't suddenly going to have a total victory SCOTUS ruling or anything else.

Sounds good to me LGN...

 

[Outlaw Man]

You prefer to have your gun rights subject to the whims of an ever-changing (and increasingly liberal) set of 50 states. You think it's better to fight the same fight with 50 sets of laws instead of 1 set of laws. As you said in your earlier post on this subject, you're not interested in visiting the "slave states," so expanded recognition of concealed carry permits doesn't interest you because it doesn't benefit you. It only benefits other people. Who cares about them as long as you're okay.

Got it.

No, I'd rather fight it to be made a law at a federal level, but a regular law is unconstitutional. I'd gladly fight for a Constitutional amendment.

I didn't say I had no interest in going to any of those places. I'd LOVE to visit California and take another trip back to D.C. (haven't been since I was a kid). I have no NEED to go there, so lobbying for CA or D.C. reciprocity isn't at the top of my list of things to do, nor would it be very effective.

I'm in favor of anything that will help our rights, but I don't want something that any judge in a federal court will throw out in a heartbeat for being unconstitutional.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Man:
I'm in favor of anything that will help our rights, but I don't want something that any judge in a federal court will throw out in a heartbeat for being unconstitutional.

Yeah like the AWB, the Machine Gun ban, the NFA laws.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Hey Hairless

I'm old, too. But, I'm principled.

Answer me this: What can your myriad of state's laws and federally forced reciprocity give us over the uninfringed Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

That's a serious question and I would like a serious and honest answer.

Woody

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state. The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.


The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859

Seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. Some still do.

 

[Gray Peterson]

There is no benefit to anyone but the feds. Most states either recognize other states permits or issue out of state permits. Most of the states which do not, would immediately pass laws on restricted carry locations which would de facto ban concealed carry in spite of the new federal CCW reciprocity law.

Addressed in this statement:

"Well if this bill passes, New York, California, and New Jersey will just ban carry on all public property, and then pop out of state residents that way"

Any such ban will have to affect in state residents as well as out of state residents just as much. I don't see lucky folk who managed to score a full license in NYC, NJ, or urban California, considering how much in campaign contributions and networking they had to do to be able to get their license, to all of the sudden allow their license to be completely worthless. They will fight for their licenses, and state legislators will face a choice: continue doing what they're doing and have the power brokers try to boot them out something fierce, or sit down and shut up.

And your argument for the law is any different? You want to carry in a few more states, and to get that you're willing to allow federal regulation of STATE issued CCW permits (the same way they regulate state issued drivers licenses, but probably stricter)?

Federal regulation? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Did you even read what I had posted? Do you even understand what a "Notwithstanding" law is?

As I stated before, and I'll put this in upper case letters letters to get everyone's attention because it's obvious that some peole cannot read:

THERE IS NO PENALTY AS FAR AS THE FEDGOV IS CONCERNED IF YOU CARRY AGAINST THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE BILL. THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENS IS THAT YOU LOSE THE NOTWITHSTANDING PROTECTION AGAINST THE STATE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST CONCEALED CARRY, WHERE YOU WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHARGES BY THE STATE THAT YOU'RE CARRYING IN! JUST LIKE IF YOU LOADED YOUR GUN THAT'S IN YOUR TRUNK WHEN THE FOPA INTERSTATE PROTECTION LAW (18USC926A) ONLY PROTECTS UNLOADED TRANSPORT ACROSS STATE LINES AGAINST STATE LAWS LIKE NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS WHERE ALL POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED/UNLICENSED HANDGUNS IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. IF YOU DECIDE TO LOAD UP THAT GUN IN YOUR TRUNK, YOU FALL OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTION AND SUBJECT TO STATE LAWS AT THAT POINT.

YOU NEED THE FOPA LAW FOR TRANSPORTING ACROSS PLACES LIKE NEW YORK STATE AND MASSACHUSETTS, NOT PLACES LIKE LOUISIANA AND NEW MEXICO WHERE YOUR VEHICLE IS CONSIDERED AN EXTENSION OF YOUR HOME AND THAT YOU MAY CARRY WHATEVER YOU WISH INSIDE OF YOUR VEHICLE IN THESE STATES.

If you still do not understand, or still oppose this bill, then call your Congressman and tell them to repeal 18USC926A so New York can charge people for unloaded trunk carry again, just like they did before 1986.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Aw Woody,

Now ya know thats just a doggone piece of paper, and heck, what's principals got to do with anything.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Yeah, I know, Paco.

I've been thinking how good it would be to inscribe the Second Amendment on all my bullets. That would be one way to make sure they got the message...

Woody

You can live free holding the stock and possibly never have to pull the trigger, or you can try to live free at the muzzle. I prefer to hold the stock and live free. Those at the muzzle never seem to fare quite so well. B.E.Wood

 

[Lupinus]

Very few of us want a national CC permit.

What many, however, are pushing for is a national law that says they have to recognize one states CC permit just the same as they do any other license. Just like they have to recognize a marrige license or a divers license. Those licenses aren't goverment regulated and are state issued with the requirments set by the states issuing. Many want the same concept for CC.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Outlaw Man:

No, I'd rather fight it to be made a law at a federal level, but a regular law is unconstitutional. I'd gladly fight for a Constitutional amendment.

...

I'm in favor of anything that will help our rights, but I don't want something that any judge in a federal court will throw out in a heartbeat for being unconstitutional.

No, don't confuse yourself. You are not "in favor of anything that will help our rights." You attacked a couple of kindergarten-level bills because they help our rights but don't expand yours. No rational person who read your messages could possibly believe your juvenile explanation that you think "a regular law is unconstitutional" but that you would "gladly fight for a Constitutional amendment." You shouldn't believe it either: you will become even more confused if you try.

Regular laws aren't unconstitional. If they were, the entire country would have ground to a halt sometime in the Eighteenth Century.

What Constitution would you want amended? If you're talking about amending the Constitution of the United States of America to guarantee concealed carry reciprocity among all the states, you need to take a deep breath and try to realize its naivete. The Constitution is not the place for details, it is extremely difficult to amend (as it should be), and the process is expensive and time consuming. That is why there have been only 27 amendments to the Constitution in all of this country's history.

If these two bills can make it into law, we get something useful with no downside at all. People who think that such a law would allow the federal government to think that it can make laws about guns are at least a little bit crazy. The federal government has thought so for a long time, has enacted many laws that affect guns and gun owners, and will continue to do so no matter what any lunatics say about why it can't and shouldn't.

Anyone who talks about "the uninfringed Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is simply not in touch with reality. Individuals have no right to keep and bear arms in the entire State of New York. It can't be infringed there because it doesn't exist there. Federal Judge Norman A. Mordue ruled that it didn't in Bach v. Pataki, a case decided in 2003. If enough gun owners continue to behave like lunatics and threaten people whose goodwill and votes they desparately need, the chances are very good that federal courts in even more states will rule as Mordue did. Even the most objective and learned jurist is a person too. Never threaten people who can decide your fate, and never call them names. It is Not Real Good Thinking to do so.

As I said in a previous message, I enjoy watching the antics of gun lunatics--especially those who think they hold all the cards because they know about the Second Amendment and are sure they know what it means. The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means, not what people with fake names in gun forums say it means or think it means. The "all or nothing" crowd is especially amusing because they haven't caught on to a few things about human relationships. What they want is confrontations in which there is a winner and a loser. What they don't get is that they won't win this confrontation, at least not while they threaten to shoot people and express contempt for everyone who doesn't agree with them. They also don't get it that anyone who demands "all or nothing" had better be prepared to have nothing. One major Hairless Rule of Life is that it's very, very stupid to demand "all or nothing" when you're in an obviously inferior position.

Example:

You are on the verge of getting fired. Your employer holds an annual evaluation with you, notes a great many points you must improve, and gives you a month to improve them all or you will be fired. He pauses and asks for your response. You, being a gun owner, say: "I demand a promotion to Vice-President, my own secretary, a company car, a substantial travel budget, six months vacation every year, and a $10,000 raise--or I quit."

What does your employer say when you have finished? Start with something other than "Son, your mother and I love you ...."