pbearperry
Member
I am starting to think that there are some people here that will never be satisfied with anything.I don't care what gives us the right to carry in all 50 states,just as long as it happens.Maybe some just love to bitch?
The “Reciprocal Conceal Carry” Act. S. 845
- Thread starter wyofool
- Start date
- Status
TheWarhammer
Member
Oregon is an open carry state. When you hit the Oregon border, either pull your gun out and lay it on the seat or dash, or move you holster/concealing garment so that the gun is not longer concealed. When you leave Oregon, put your gun back away.
Oregon is an open carry state, but local jurisdictions can ban open carry to all but holders of valid concealed carry permits.
Open carry in some places, without a valid concealed carry permit, is still a crime in Oregon.
Stupid? Yes. But it's Oregon.
Open carry in some places, without a valid concealed carry permit, is still a crime in Oregon.
Stupid? Yes. But it's Oregon.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Illinois? I am in Georgia.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
ArmedBear said:
This bill and any like it do not restrict the states "ability" to limit the rights of their citizens. This bill supports the underlying unconstitutional laws by giving recognition to the laws that are exceptions to the underlying laws.
I've outlined federal law that I would support that would remove the restrictions to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
Me At Comment #18 In This Very Thread said:
Please don't mis-characterize me. It shows how weak your arguments are and is an insult to honest discourse.
Woody
This is an insult to honest discourse.
It's not going to happen, and if it did, I doubt it would pass constitutional muster.
Your suggesting things that won't happen as your proposed solutions, combined with your serial objections to Federal interference with "states' rights" to restrict individuals as the states see fit, don't add up to anything "honest", Cowboy. It's just a rant.
Furthermore, if Congress passed a law requiring all states to remove all restrictions from concealed carry by law-abiding citizens, would you really support it?
Have you changed your mind about states' rights?
Lone_Gunman
Member
Well, it doesn't really matter how some of you guys feel. This bill will have no chance of passing, and is really just a waste of time and money to even attempt it.
Superpsy
Member
41022collector, sent you a pm.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
.
What do you think the chances of this passing are?
.
What do you think the chances of this passing are?
.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Zero, no chance at all it will pass. It is a waste of time and money. Anti-gun people will not support it, and half the pro-gun people will not.
I'm curious about
the logic that says that the Feds have no role here.
It is our position that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, free (to the maximum extent possible) from the regulatory and police powers of government. We also believe that , through the 14th Amendment (and the Supremacy Clause, for those of us who believe that Barron was wrongly decided), that protection applies to State and local governments.
We're talking about the Federal Constitution, right?
How can it be consistently claimed that the Federal government has no role in enforcing a right enshrined in the Federal Constitution?
Color me confused.
--Shannon
the logic that says that the Feds have no role here.
It is our position that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, free (to the maximum extent possible) from the regulatory and police powers of government. We also believe that , through the 14th Amendment (and the Supremacy Clause, for those of us who believe that Barron was wrongly decided), that protection applies to State and local governments.
We're talking about the Federal Constitution, right?
How can it be consistently claimed that the Federal government has no role in enforcing a right enshrined in the Federal Constitution?
Color me confused.
--Shannon
Simply, it can't.
I just think some people are sore about legalized sodomy in Texas, etc.
Let the Feds in, and pretty soon they won't let your local cops bust down doors at night and arrest gay people.
You wouldn't want your freedom to tell other people what to do in their own homes to be infringed on by the Feds, would you?
(An argument can be made that the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid state and local laws that require the execution of homosexuals and witches... Not even THAT argument can be made about RKBA.)
The post-Civil War 14th Amendment adds an explicit Federal responsibility: enforcing guarantees of fundamental individual rights against the states.
Last edited:
Big Mike
Member
Where is this bill in the committee process?
Google is my friend: Senate, April 21, 2009, was read and introduced.
Companion bill in the House is 197. No action since February 09, 2009 when it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
I believe these have been discussed in previous threads.
Google is my friend: Senate, April 21, 2009, was read and introduced.
Companion bill in the House is 197. No action since February 09, 2009 when it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
I believe these have been discussed in previous threads.
Big Mike
Member
Where is this bill in the committee process?
Amendment to the "hate crime bill"
Many of you are right that this bill wouldn't pass on its own. The push is (and should be) as an amendment to the "The Matthew Shepard Act". Because of the "feel good" aspect of the bill many in Congress think it will be passed. So like the Credit Card bill this could be the best way to get the "Reciprocal Conceal Carry" into law.
Many of you are right that this bill wouldn't pass on its own. The push is (and should be) as an amendment to the "The Matthew Shepard Act". Because of the "feel good" aspect of the bill many in Congress think it will be passed. So like the Credit Card bill this could be the best way to get the "Reciprocal Conceal Carry" into law.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
ArmedBear
I don't know if I can clear this up with you in one post, but I'll try.
Everything I suggested is within Congress's purview.
First, whether these things even get proposed is a long shot, to be sure. But, I have long suggested that Congress take charge of the situation with its power in the Fourteenth Amendment to order the several states to cease and desist with the unconstitutional infringements upon our right to keep and bear arms. This bill does not do that.
Second, states do not have rights. States have powers, and only those powers in their constitutions that do not conflict with the Constitution and the laws of the Union. State laws that limit, prohibit and in any way govern the keeping and bearing of arms are contrary to the Constitution. This would include state laws that "grant permission" for the carrying of arms(in any fashion). These are the laws that need to be challenged in court, repealed by the several state legislatures, or negated by law from Congress. This bill only entrenches the unconstitutional law.
In a heartbeat. To do that, the states would have to remove any laws that make it "necessary" to have concealed carry provisions in the first place. Those laws are the underlying unconstitutional laws infringing upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
As I stated, states do not have rights. Only people have rights. What's to change?
The bottom line is that we both want to carry our arms everywhere we go, state to state, town to town. My way of bringing it about is constitutional, is the way it is supposed to be - unfettered. Your way accepts state law governing the manner in which you may carry and where. Your way would allow the Union in the mix. Even if you are of the ilk that still thinks the Second Amendment only limits the Union, you'd have to be willing to allow the Union to infringe upon your Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for that is exactly what this legislation would do. It would be the Union accepting that the several state's laws must have some legitimacy and would, therefore, be complicit in the infringements the state laws represent.
I'm not willing to complicate the matter. It's difficult enough to unfetter our rights as it stands. Why make it harder and more precarious? In the light of the recent victory in DC v. Heller, we stand a great chance of having the Second Amendment "incorporated" to the states. (In my reading of the Constitution, the Second Amendment has applied to all government from it's inception, but since the Court has taken it upon itself to be the arbiter of what the Fourteenth Amendment says, once the Court "incorporates" it, it'll be as if the Second Amendment applied to all levels of government from the get go.)
I know you understand this concept of the power granted to Congress in the Fourteenth Amendment to reign in the several states when they run afoul of our rights:
The way to go about this is to use that power in the Fourteenth to clear off the unconstitutional state laws. Federally mandated reciprocity is not the way to go. It is subject to constitutional scrutiny(it can disappear nearly as fast as Congress can pass it), and would be subject to Congressional and bureaucratic abuse if allowed to stand.
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
It seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. This was prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, too.
I don't know if I can clear this up with you in one post, but I'll try.
ArmedBear said:
Everything I suggested is within Congress's purview.
ArmedBear said:
First, whether these things even get proposed is a long shot, to be sure. But, I have long suggested that Congress take charge of the situation with its power in the Fourteenth Amendment to order the several states to cease and desist with the unconstitutional infringements upon our right to keep and bear arms. This bill does not do that.
Second, states do not have rights. States have powers, and only those powers in their constitutions that do not conflict with the Constitution and the laws of the Union. State laws that limit, prohibit and in any way govern the keeping and bearing of arms are contrary to the Constitution. This would include state laws that "grant permission" for the carrying of arms(in any fashion). These are the laws that need to be challenged in court, repealed by the several state legislatures, or negated by law from Congress. This bill only entrenches the unconstitutional law.
ArmedBear said:
In a heartbeat. To do that, the states would have to remove any laws that make it "necessary" to have concealed carry provisions in the first place. Those laws are the underlying unconstitutional laws infringing upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
ArmedBear said:
As I stated, states do not have rights. Only people have rights. What's to change?
The bottom line is that we both want to carry our arms everywhere we go, state to state, town to town. My way of bringing it about is constitutional, is the way it is supposed to be - unfettered. Your way accepts state law governing the manner in which you may carry and where. Your way would allow the Union in the mix. Even if you are of the ilk that still thinks the Second Amendment only limits the Union, you'd have to be willing to allow the Union to infringe upon your Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for that is exactly what this legislation would do. It would be the Union accepting that the several state's laws must have some legitimacy and would, therefore, be complicit in the infringements the state laws represent.
I'm not willing to complicate the matter. It's difficult enough to unfetter our rights as it stands. Why make it harder and more precarious? In the light of the recent victory in DC v. Heller, we stand a great chance of having the Second Amendment "incorporated" to the states. (In my reading of the Constitution, the Second Amendment has applied to all government from it's inception, but since the Court has taken it upon itself to be the arbiter of what the Fourteenth Amendment says, once the Court "incorporates" it, it'll be as if the Second Amendment applied to all levels of government from the get go.)
I know you understand this concept of the power granted to Congress in the Fourteenth Amendment to reign in the several states when they run afoul of our rights:
ArmedBear said:
The way to go about this is to use that power in the Fourteenth to clear off the unconstitutional state laws. Federally mandated reciprocity is not the way to go. It is subject to constitutional scrutiny(it can disappear nearly as fast as Congress can pass it), and would be subject to Congressional and bureaucratic abuse if allowed to stand.
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
It seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. This was prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, too.
gimlet1/21
Member
Individual vs. (Named State) for infringement of personal Rights
I wonder if we could force the issue, by flooding the court dockets across the country with individual suits? If every State simultaneously had thousands of cases of infringed "Constitutional Rights" what might happen? Would they all be forced to refer to the recent pro- gun rulings? Am I wrong in thinking this would be a more effective movement than marching on Washington? (I will participate in the march!!)
I wonder if we could force the issue, by flooding the court dockets across the country with individual suits? If every State simultaneously had thousands of cases of infringed "Constitutional Rights" what might happen? Would they all be forced to refer to the recent pro- gun rulings? Am I wrong in thinking this would be a more effective movement than marching on Washington? (I will participate in the march!!)
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I've suggested this before and I think it has possibilities. The only way to put a stop to the lawsuits would be to remove the infringements or amend the Constitution.
One problem would be if all the cases were to be rolled into one class action suit. If each case involved a defendant instead of a plaintiff, it might avoid the class action, which would mean each person involved would have to violate an unconstitutional law, be arrested and charged.
We need a very wealthy supporter of the Second Amendment to bankroll this. Earth to NRA...Earth to NRA...Come in NRA...
Woody
Perhaps we should round up all the Feds (the they, them bunch) and send them back to the country "they" came from. Oh wait..."they" are American Citizens..."they" are one of us.
Okay...perhaps we should round up all the politicians at the federal level and send them back to whatever foreign country they came from. OOPS! I just realized "they" are American Citizens too...one of us.
Who's to blame for all these "theys" and "thems" and the dumb laws "they" and "them" pass and enforce? How did these federal authorities obtain their power? Well...Humm! I guess that would be by us voting American Citizens. We are to blame. Perhaps we are a voting minority and this is just how our political system works. Paranoid fear of the federal government, our government, does not make any sense to me. True, we may not get our way all the time, and I am a supporter of the 2nd, but why does it seem everytime someone does not get their way the Government and it's employees get trashed. I have no problem arguing and criticizing a politician...that is the nature of their job. Their positions on political issues are made known to the citizens and we, the voting citizens, steer the ship through our vote. But trashing the various domestic federal enforcement agencies does not seem fair. The laws "they" are sworn to enforce are crafted by the politicians we, the voting citizens, place into power. We have only ourselves to blame if we do not like/agree with the federal laws and their enforcement.
Now I have to go find my fire extinguisher.
Okay...perhaps we should round up all the politicians at the federal level and send them back to whatever foreign country they came from. OOPS! I just realized "they" are American Citizens too...one of us.
Who's to blame for all these "theys" and "thems" and the dumb laws "they" and "them" pass and enforce? How did these federal authorities obtain their power? Well...Humm! I guess that would be by us voting American Citizens. We are to blame. Perhaps we are a voting minority and this is just how our political system works. Paranoid fear of the federal government, our government, does not make any sense to me. True, we may not get our way all the time, and I am a supporter of the 2nd, but why does it seem everytime someone does not get their way the Government and it's employees get trashed. I have no problem arguing and criticizing a politician...that is the nature of their job. Their positions on political issues are made known to the citizens and we, the voting citizens, steer the ship through our vote. But trashing the various domestic federal enforcement agencies does not seem fair. The laws "they" are sworn to enforce are crafted by the politicians we, the voting citizens, place into power. We have only ourselves to blame if we do not like/agree with the federal laws and their enforcement.
Now I have to go find my fire extinguisher.
Code:
The ONLY thing the bill says is IF (meaning state don't have to issue CCW) a state issues CCW then need to honor CCW issued by other states. Just like we do with marriage licenses, and pilot licenses, and driver's licenses.Pilots licenses are issued by the Feds. The FAA to be exact. There is no such thing as a state issued pilots license.
But other than that the above is correct and there are many other licenses that are covered under the current full faith and credit clause. For example your car or truck license plates. Boats are also covered as are other things.
freewheeling
Member
The best chance of something like this passing congress is to take the route used in the parks legislation, and fold it into another bill that's supported by the ruling party. A stand-alone bill co-sponsored mostly by Republicans has no chance. In fact, the only reason it's introduced is to score political points with a constituency.
Folding it into the Shephard Act is an interesting way to go, but the only leverage you'd have for that is if the Shephard Act needed some Republican or Blue Dog sponsorship that it wouldn't otherwise get. I don't think it does, so far. (Which sure doesn't mean I think it's good law.)
As for the constitutional issues and the precedent set by establishing federal control over state discretion, I can see rather compelling arguments on both sides. On one hand, if blanket CCW isn't a fundamental constitutional right then states ought to be able to set their own standards. If it is, then it needs no statutory authority to back it up. But the problem is that there's a long history of denying a blanket right to carry concealed, so it's unlikely that such a blanket right would be established at this late date. Not in one fell swoop, anyway.
Which means, it's not a perfect world.
Folding it into the Shephard Act is an interesting way to go, but the only leverage you'd have for that is if the Shephard Act needed some Republican or Blue Dog sponsorship that it wouldn't otherwise get. I don't think it does, so far. (Which sure doesn't mean I think it's good law.)
As for the constitutional issues and the precedent set by establishing federal control over state discretion, I can see rather compelling arguments on both sides. On one hand, if blanket CCW isn't a fundamental constitutional right then states ought to be able to set their own standards. If it is, then it needs no statutory authority to back it up. But the problem is that there's a long history of denying a blanket right to carry concealed, so it's unlikely that such a blanket right would be established at this late date. Not in one fell swoop, anyway.
Which means, it's not a perfect world.
freewheeling
Member
As an ideal this is fine, as long as you recognize that it's simply not going to happen. There is a long history of suppressing the unfettered right to carry concealed in this country, so a new understanding of such a right, that has been routinely breached, would have to disavow that history. (The Earps in Dodge City, for instance.) That's about as likely as the sun rising in the West.
That said, it's certainly possible to expand reciprocity so that a CCW in one state is recognized by almost all other states (say over 75%). If federalism acts as a brake to that expansion, it also acts as a brake to contraction. It's possible to pose a reasonable argument to the voting populations of most states to favor reciprocity agreements, even without establishing a universal standard (for instance, by mixing and aggregating resident and not resident permits, even if the states aren't individually reciprocated).
Classical liberal ideals don't guarantee a perfect world, or even a consistently just world. They merely guarantee that we tend to move in the right general direction, in the long run. It's the worst possible system, except for everything else.
- Status
