The “Reciprocal Conceal Carry” Act. S. 845

[altitude_19]

Views of the well-travelled man

I support this bill. Thinking this will open a federal can of worms is a moot point when you consider the unlikelihood of full national reciprocity happening on it's own. You may as well ask a corporation to run without a head office. You worry about your gun rights being stepped on? IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING. Do you have any idea the research that has to be done before a road trip or military transfer as it is just so I don't get turned into a criminal the second I cross a state line? This is just enforcement of the "faith and credit" we should have had all along. Here's what I sent to my senators. Use it as a frame work for your own letters if you like. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR NOTES!!!! If you want to change something, do it, copy, paste, and send it off to your senator. If you don't like it at all, well, I don't really care.

Sir,
I’m far from being a legislative expert, so I hope you’ll excuse any incorrect terminology on my part. I am writing to request your support for the Thune-Vitter amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) establishing interstate reciprocity of permits to carry concealed handguns.
I am in the process of establishing my residence near Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, having just transferred here on orders with the United States Air Force. I have been on active duty for over six years and have relocated several times pursuant to my duties. That experience grants me unique perspective regarding the benefits of national concealed-carry reciprocity.
During this particular transfer, I was interested in obtaining my Nebraska permit to carry as soon as possible, as my South Dakota permit is not honored here. In recent years, I was responsible for producing documentation and evidence that resulted in the court-marshal, confinement, and discharge of a former co-worker. He has since relocated to Omaha (his hometown) and has been made aware of my moving here as well. I have concerns he may hold me responsible for his discharge from the Air Force and means to do me harm. A lack of concrete evidence to that effect, however, leaves me with little recourse in the way of a protection order.
Ordinarily, the obvious solution would be to lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense pending the manifestation of sufficient evidence to file for said protection order, but Nebraska state law requires 180 days of residency to qualify for a permit to carry. Additionally, there is the matter of the required training course (ranging upwards of $200 in cost) and the permit application fee ($100 [easily arguable as excessive]).
To quantify the burden the current state of affairs places on citizens in my position, please consider the following:
1.) I must make considerable effort in guarding my contact information and residence. I must vary my route to and from work. I have purchased a shredder for personal documents and will be ensuring my telephone number remains unlisted. I am forced to refrain from establishing a routine, such as going to the Laundromat or grocery store on certain days of the week. I must do these things in excess of 180 days. For 180 days, I must remain in a fearful and overtly vigilant state. ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DAYS of being defenseless.
2.) Including training and application costs, as well as fuel used to attend such appointments, I will have expended more then $300 acquiring a Nebraska state permit. Sir, I am sure you know that the military lifestyle carries enough burdens as it is. This needless expenditure to exercise a constitutional right from duty station to duty station is senseless and persecutory. THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS, just to continue exercising a constitutional right after having already picked up and relocated my entire life pursuant to my duty to my country.
It is simply unfair to ask me to do these things when I could just as easily go lawfully armed, if it weren’t for the draconian refusal to honor ALL states’ firearms permits. The constitution does not once mention automobile operator permits but, somehow, my operator permit is honored in EVERY state. Surely, there can be no good reason why the same due faith and credit cannot extend to lawfully bearing arms (a right that is mentioned quite prominently in the bill of rights).
I am enthusiastic to be establishing residence in your beautiful state. I have been warmly received and am settling in comfortably. I know you are concerned for the welfare of our military and will be eager to alleviate the difficulty of changing duty stations at any given opportunity. I salute and appreciate your support and am sure my comrades echo the sentiment. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. And thank you in advance for your support of the Thune-Vitter amendment.

 

[Fetus]

yeah i'm against it ... basically what will happen is some states ( like Massachusetts) that already don't like ccw will ban carry in their state so this law wont apply to them -- this is not a good thing .

 

[Faitmaker]

You won't like what I have to say because it typically goes against gun rights. Being an anti-federalist, I believe that none of the BoR rights should have been incorporated and the Supreme Court has agreed with that many times, concerning the 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd had not been incorporated, why were any of the others. Currently SCOTUS has incorporated all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials.

I believe Scotus has been wrong with incorporation and that the states have a right to legislate themselves through the power of the people, which is why I disagree with the National Reciprocity bill. It demands that a state recognize a CCW from other states even if the requirements to get it from the host state doesn't match those required in the traveled through state. If one state requires x,y,z, and k.. why would they want to honor a state that like Vermont has no requirements or NH where you can pay $10 to get your permit and have it by filling out an application? If that state WANTS to have tougher restrictions, that's up to them. (I don't agree with restrictions btw but that's another topic)

If the 14th amendment wasn't a BS attempt to get states under the federal government then 2A wouldn't need incorporated. Incorporation is judicial activism at it's finest. If the 14th amendment binds the states, it would do so for all 10 amendments and not just the one's the robes fancy.

For the record, I carry because my state allows me too. Why hasn't Chicago been overturned and most of Illinois when D.C. was overturned? Because D.C. is not in a state and follows FEDERAL laws. D.C. is a town that is MOST subjected by the Constitution. Heller should have blew Chicago out of the water. Instead, the NRA is NOW working on them but haven't proven successful.

I wish all states were to the level of freedom Vermont is (and Ohio isn't far from it in this regard) but that currently isn't the climate, which it would be if the BoR applied to the states. States should not be extorted by the Federal government to bend to it's will through sanctions. Would you want to live in a state where you voted for this and that only to see it done away with because your state was going to lose Federal dollars? Dollars that you paid to the Federal government through your taxes?

Think about what you are asking in the name of having nationwide reciprocity. You are about to open a lot of worms that the Founder's NEVER wanted.

State rights has always been a fundamental of this Country. I can see how easily it is to get you to turn over for what you want though and you'd throw another state under the bus to get it. You want rights recognized? Work within your state community. Leave the Federal government out of it. Sorry for the long post.

 

[batjka]

While I understand the arguments about the Feds getting into the States' Rights business, one must also recognize that they are already in it.

If we believe in States' Rights we should then argue that any State should be able to throw out any Federal regulation. Anything. Gun Control Act, Highway Safety Act, Environmental Protection Act. But the Sates can't, can they? They can only apply additional restrictions if the wish, but the minimum standard is established by the Fed. So how is this thing different?

If every Federal regulation had to be passes by every State in order to be valid in that State, I would agree with the nay-sayers. But it is not the case. So preserving what Rights are we talking about?

I'm really looking forward to being able to carry in NY with a Florida CCW license. I'm for this bill. When do they vote on it?

 

[mblat]

While I understand the arguments about the Feds getting into the States' Rights business, one must also recognize that they are already in it.

If we believe in States' Rights we should then argue that any State should be able to throw out any Federal regulation. Anything. Gun Control Act, Highway Safety Act, Environmental Protection Act. But the Sates can't, can they? They can only apply additional restrictions if the wish, but the minimum standard is established by the Fed. So how is this thing different?

If every Federal regulation had to be passes by every State in order to be valid in that State, I would agree with the nay-sayers. But it is not the case. So preserving what Rights are we talking about?

I'm really looking forward to being able to carry in NY with a Florida CCW license. I'm for this bill. When do they vote on it?

If I read it correctly it is even better than that. Feds here don't seem to establish ANY standards. They basically say - "if a State (A) allows CC, and a person is a resident with CC from any other State, then State (A) has to recognize it".

I don't see anything about "minimal requirements here".

 

[green-grizzly]

States recognize each other’s driving licenses. The feds require that states recognize driving licenses of other countries. This has not resulted in any kind of federal takeover of local traffic laws. And, unlike the RKBA, there is no right to drive specifically protected by the bill of rights.

I don't see this as a state's rights issue. Under the constitution, states are not supposed to treat the residents of other states differently (Article 4, Section 2). I can't even apply for a California CCW permit as I am a nonresident. States have no 'right' to discriminate against non residents. States are also supposed to honor the acts of other states, and Congress has the power to determine how that is done (Article 4, Section 1).

This is not to mention that these states are denying people their right to bear arms, a right that may be enforced by Congress under the 14th amendment.

States lost the power to discriminate against nonresidents in 1789, and the power to deny people their fundamental rights in 1868. The states have no right to do that which is forbidden by the Constitution.

When I travel in my own country I want to be able to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate that some members of Congress are trying to make this happen.

 

[AZCOWBOY]

National Park Carry not set to happen until FEB 2010, Congress could change something before then to stop or limit this carry. This current National Carry will pass no doubt now then in the future the feds will change it making it more restrictive for states like MT ID WY UT SD ND etc to be more like the Eastern Block Commie States and the Commie Left West Coast or just prohibit conceal carry all together by the feds like he says he can give and he can take away, remember changing speed limits, remember seat belt laws - the feds just threaten to not to give the states fed funds for highways until they changed their state laws of course of the states governors, attorney generals, legislator bowed down to the feds and changed the state laws. Both of these Bills were attached to something or another to pass - it's all a big game and part of the big plan.

Another part of the plan the Governor's Association just told the feds they do not need another stimulus package now, but they did not say they would not need one later.

Another part of the plan was that 33 State Attorneys supported the NRA in the SCOTUS case, all fluff, all show, all as some of you say "eye candy". Just like National Park Carry and National Carry is just "eye candy'.

Another part of the plan, yes the so-called National Health will be passed.

So what do the Democrat and spineless republicans get out of these two bills of National Carry and National Park Carry ? SOTOMAYOR in the SCOTUS, then these Democrat and spineless republicans have a majority on the SCOTUS, then anytime on the future from SEP 2009 & on they can drop the Carry Nationwide and in the Parks (the vote for SOTOMAYOR is in AUG 2009).

Also remember, Congress can pass it, but the President can Veto it. So Congress passes it then SOTOMAYOR is approved by Congress then President just veto's it or let's it become law to later modified or stop the law ---- guess how - the SCOTUS with SOTOMAYOR on it declares National Park and National Carry UN-constitutional.

then the Gun Carry People have nothing and Democrats / spineless republicans have a majority on the SCOTUS which is why ? they are all (Democrats / spineless republicans) worried about the latino/mexican/brown (these are the words SOTOMAYOR uses Capt Crunch) votes in the elections of 2010 and 2012

Think about Now who is in Power and who Controls the Admin Branch and Congress plus will soon control SCOTUS, figured the answer out yet ? So why would they give us National Park and Nation Carry ? as above it is all a big game and part of the big plan.

From the letters received back from Senators in even WY ID MT in the last few days by several of us, SOTOMAYOR will be approved for the SCOTUS, it is cut and dry.

NRA, SAF, GOA - will shortly look like hero's "to you" for the National Park and Nation Carry laws, but this will go away in the near. Plus they get to keep fighting supposedly for us - their job security.

As far as I am concerned State's Rights are being lost and the feds are becoming more powerful - which as our Founder's would tell us is not a good thing.

So supporters of this, you will go quietly into the night like sheep lead by the Judas Goats that speak with a Forked Tongue of a Snake. Many on here say they support the 2A but then they themselves want restrictions on the 2A. Just like the feds lied to the Indians in the past.

 

[ThrottleJockey72]

As far as I am concerned State's Rights are being lost and the feds are becoming more powerful

States lost their rights in the War of Northern Aggression my friend. And they lost their National Guard early this year.

 

[Faitmaker]

States recognize each other’s driving licenses. The feds require that states recognize driving licenses of other countries. This has not resulted in any kind of federal takeover of local traffic laws. And, unlike the RKBA, there is no right to drive specifically protected by the bill of rights.

What was the Federal speed limit until 1995 when they returned power to the states to decide for themselves?

I don't see this as a state's rights issue. Under the constitution, states are not supposed to treat the residents of other states differently (Article 4, Section 2). I can't even apply for a California CCW permit as I am a nonresident. States have no 'right' to discriminate against non residents. States are also supposed to honor the acts of other states, and Congress has the power to determine how that is done (Article 4, Section 1).

States don't have rights. They have powers. And the Article doesn't say that exactly. Residents are entitled to state benefits. Try to collect welfare from another state and see how far you get. There are reasonable exclusions. You have the right to buy property in another state. You have the right not to be taxed more in another state than it's residents. You have the right to move freely across state lines, etc.

This is not to mention that these states are denying people their right to bear arms, a right that may be enforced by Congress under the 14th amendment.

States lost the power to discriminate against nonresidents in 1789, and the power to deny people their fundamental rights in 1868. The states have no right to do that which is forbidden by the Constitution.

Well, I disagree with that but /shrug. If the 14th amendment binds the states, it should do so for all the amendments. Not those selected by men in robes.

When I travel in my own country I want to be able to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate that some members of Congress are trying to make this happen.

Want and legal is two different things. I want the constitution to remain the law in the land but because of what others "want" we have the Patriot Act and I lost a right to privacy.

 

[green-grizzly]

Faitmaker:

What was the Federal speed limit until 1995 when they returned power to the states to decide for themselves?

That was done under the power of the purse; states were denied highway funds if they didn't conform. The states were still free to ignore the federal law. It didn't have anything to do with driver's license reciprocity.

States don't have rights. They have powers. And the Article doesn't say that exactly. Residents are entitled to state benefits. Try to collect welfare from another state and see how far you get. There are reasonable exclusions. You have the right to buy property in another state. You have the right not to be taxed more in another state than it's residents. You have the right to move freely across state lines, etc.

I agree about rights being for people and powers for states. That seems to be the venacular people use though, and have long used. Anyway, the constitution does protect the fundamental rights of people from other states. Maybe not welfare and hunting rights, but people visiting other states do get free speech, jury trials, etc. Are you saying the RKBA is not fundamental?

Well, I disagree with that but /shrug. If the 14th amendment binds the states, it should do so for all the amendments. Not those selected by men in robes.

The first 8 amendments should be applied to the states in toto, as well as habeas corpus, jury trials, etc. It would make my heart sing if every speeding ticket had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury.

Want and legal is two different things. I want the constitution to remain the law in the land but because of what others "want" we have the Patriot Act and I lost a right to privacy.

Want and legal are two different things, and I think my being able to bear arms in California is both. I am glad the Congress is finally going to enforce that, and I don't think Congress possibly screwing up with the PATRIOT act is an excuse for them not to do so.

 

[AZCOWBOY]

NRA ILA, GOA, and SAF you have done some good
things over the years, but many times you have lost your
way and again you have lost your way !
Take the TROJAN HORSE BILL you are pushing on
National Right to Carry and shove it along with
you reforming ATF and Firearms Modernization.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5063
National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Amendment

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4951
and others like reforming the ATF and Firearms Modernization

If you want to do something worth doing for the USA, Constitution,
Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, and the PEOPLE, then REPEAL
not add more laws to the patchwork quilt we have now, repeal the
1968 Gun Control Act, the 1930's restrictions on Machine Guns and
Silencers all of which the NRA directly supported, in fact repeal every
gun and knife (ARMS) laws on the books at every level of government
except the Second Amendment.

We know you need something to do to justify your jobs and salary for
you and your families ! No problem with that, just do what you should
- REPEAL not to build houses of mirrors and smoke screens ! and quit
cutting deals on the side like you did on this one - Congress give us
National Carry then we will give you SOTOMAYOR and the ATF
reforms the GOVT wants.

 

[Faitmaker]

That was done under the power of the purse; states were denied highway funds if they didn't conform. The states were still free to ignore the federal law. It didn't have anything to do with driver's license reciprocity.

Or we can call it extortion. Or going around the system to get what you want. Generally what all of Congress and the SCOTUS understand.

I agree about rights being for people and powers for states. That seems to be the venacular people use though, and have long used.

I have to admit. I was jerking the chain on that one. I use State rights as well but understand that the Constitution doesn't give states rights. It gives them the power of the people.

Anyway, the constitution does protect the fundamental rights of people from other states. Maybe not welfare and hunting rights, but people visiting other states do get free speech, jury trials, etc. Are you saying the RKBA is not fundamental?

Well again, you are talking to someone who believes that the Constitution is about the Federal government and that the 14th amendment was misused. I would say it doesn't protect your freedom of speech in regards to states and private persons. However, since the SCOTUS saw fit to incorporate that, non-residents would have the same right to free speech as you do through the 14th amendment. Let us say for sake of argument that the 14th gives you the same right as citizens in another state, at the very most you are going to get out of that is the state has to give you the right to go through whatever they see fit on their resident regulations, ie, you can get a Mass. permit by going through Mass's procedures for their citizens.

The first 8 amendments should be applied to the states in toto, as well as habeas corpus, jury trials, etc. It would make my heart sing if every speeding ticket had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury.

Goes back to state sovereignty. I'd rather my state decide what is good for my state. Once the Feds decide that they can do "this" than that gives them an inroad to doing "that" and suddenly it's ok with every one because they slowly chipped away and we are all now boiling frogs (love that analogy).

Want and legal are two different things, and I think my being able to bear arms in California is both. I am glad the Congress is finally going to enforce that, and I don't think Congress possibly screwing up with the PATRIOT act is an excuse for them not to do so.

I have no doubt that you are glad that you might be getting this but that doesn't make it Consititutional. "Finally going to enforce"? There has to be something TO enforce before they can finally do it. Is this your statement? "I am glad that the Congress of the United States is going to force other states to bend to my desires"? Maybe we can get the UN to tell other countries to allow us to carry as we travel the globe and then we would really be in paradise...

Congress did screw up with the PATRIOT act and this would be the same thing. Congress using power they do not have. Once you open that door, you will never close it. I would prefer to get reciprocity worked out amongst the states. The way we are going, everyone will be on board sooner or later. This is a ball that is just going to get bigger the more "normal" firearms get. And we can do it without the Feds getting their foot in the door.

Just be careful what power you are willing to give them. They have already proven that they can't handle the power already given. Why give them more? Once they have it, you will never take it away from them.

Has anyone noticed that this is the first time Conservatives have screamed that incorporation is good and the Liberals have said "no it's not". We live in interesting times. That's for sure.

 

[green-grizzly]

Faitmaker:

I'm sure you recognize that the consensus is that the 14th amendment was intended to 'incorporate' the amendments, and that the old Supreme Court precedents holding otherwise (Slaughterhouse, etc.) are dead wrong. I'm not saying that there is no evidence to the contrary or that there may be a constititional scholar or two that agrees with you, but it is against the weight of the evidence. We can argue about whether that is good policy, but it seems pretty clear that this was the intent of the 14th amendment.

I don't have confidence that we will get reciprocity among all of the states. It will never happen in NY, CA, etc. Heck, even NV is stepping back. We fought a big war, and passed a constitutional amendment so that the states can't deny the right to bear arms (as well as the other 7 original amendments). The language is not perfectly clear, but almost everybody that has studied it thinks that was the intent. Maybe you disagree, and maybe the Supreme Court will too. But IMHO if you want to change the constitution back to the way it was before the Civil War, you and others others who have similar policy goals should work to amend the constitution and repeal the 14th amendment instead of just ignoring what it says.

I like "state rights" and federalism too, and would love to see the courts put some teeth in their commerce clause jurisprudence. It would be even better if Congress would respect the constitution on its own, but I won't hold my breath. The expanded commerce clause is the real enemy of federalism. Unlike the 14th amendment with the bill of rights, there was never any constitutional amendment to expand the commerce clause.

I can see possibly objecting to something like that law Congress passed a few years ago protecting gun makers from state lawsuits; that was a really questionable application of congressional power under the commerce clause. But this bill we are talking about now is being done in accordance with a constitutional amendment passed 141 years ago. Congress and the courts are not ignoring the constitution, they are implementing it.

Anyway, cheers. We will see how Senator Thune's amendment plays out. Both of my Senators are on board (one of whom is running scared for reelection, so he is very pro RKBA this year).

 

[ArmedBear]

We fought a big war, and passed a constitutional amendment so that the states can't deny the right to bear arms (as well as the other 7 original amendments). The language is not perfectly clear, but almost everybody that has studied it thinks that was the intent.

I honestly don't think that many people who aren't still sore about losing said war and having their ancestors forced to free their slaves are particularly interested in arguments against applying the 14th Amendment, the intent of which is quite clear.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems PRETTY DAMNED SIMPLE to me.

I don't think there's any point in trying to debate this stuff with someone who isn't interested in a real debate. There's little point in debating it, at all.

That's not an ad hominem. It's an observation.

 

[gringolet]

if this is limited to states with CCW laws it is a bit of a non-starter.
my home state has reciprocity with some 28 other states now. or more
(have not checked lately)...in fact, my wife and I ride motorcycles a
bit and pretty much every state I'd be interested in visiting is now honoring
our state CCW as we are theirs. This is an issue the CCW states can resolve
themselves. If the Act will permit carry interstate in the NON-CCW states then it is worthwhile and will help resolve a problem, but you can bet it will open a can of worms
on the question of what restrictions those states may impose such as requiring the
weapon be in a locked compartment in their state boundaries.

 

[ArmedBear]

if this is limited to states with CCW laws it is a bit of a non-starter.

No, it is NOT.

That's what people don't get.

California, for example, has CCW. It just doesn't actually issue the permits to anyone but the rich, famous, or politically connected.

This means that there would probably be a lot of pressure on California to go from "may issue" to "shall issue", since California won't go to "no issue." Politicians are not going to tell their Hollywood donors that they can't have their guns with them.

It would also force states like Oregon to accept neighboring states' permits. Currently, this is a problem since some highways go in and out of Oregon -- but Oregon seldom issues out-of-state permits, and has no reciprocity.

 

[mgkdrgn]

If this passes would California, Washington DC, and so on, have to accept my MT, CCP? Just like my Drivers license.
In a Sence It would Force Anti States to have CC Laws!

Don't hold your breath. This thing has about as much chance of passing as having flaming monkeys fly out my a**

 

[ThrottleJockey72]

Don't hold your breath. This thing has about as much chance of passing as having flaming monkeys fly out my a**

Well you'd better get some preparation H and some ice, and put on some slow music, because on Wednesday July 22, 2009 at high noon, Senate is voting on the amendment to the defense bill otherwise known as S 1618. And it has more than enough support to pass.

 

[AZCOWBOY]

To: Senator --------, Senator --------, and Representative ----------of the State of -----------:

Do not support or vote for the Thune-Vitter Amendment to S. 1390 . I realize this is supported by the NRA, GOA, and SAF, but this time they are wrong in this pushing issue, and I have e-mailed and called all three organizations the same. We do not need the Fed's mettling in State of -------- business, we have enough of it already.

Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. John Wayne

Besides it being UN-Constitutional, this is exactly why the Thune-Vitter Amendment to S. 1390 will not work. States like NJ, NY, MD, CT, MA, IL, etc would not let it work and could care less what Congress or the other Fed's say. First time anyone like from AZ or ID or MT or WY when to NJ to carry CWP, they would most likely be harassed or thrown in jail.

Conceal Carry / Open Carry is a State's Right's Issue and it always has been that away. Fed's have no say in the matter. Driver's License has nothing to do with it but even if it did Driver" Licenses issues all handled under State agreements not some Fed law or regulation.

It is UN-Constitutional for Congress to pass Thune-Vitter Amendment to S. 1390 and for the President to sign. It would be a definite violation of Oath of Office for the Congress to pass and for the President to sign. Threat of passage of this amendment is a clear and present danger to The Constitution of the United States of America. As per their Oath of Office, Congress "swore to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic". Now it is up to Congress to do their duty and uphold the Constitution as they swore they would do.

The only law related to "ARMS" (firearms, knives, and tomahawks, etc) that is needed and warranted is the Second Amendment - Bill of Rights of The Constitution of United States of America. All other such laws or agency rules should be abolished immediately. This patchwork of Fed, State, County, and City laws across our Great Nation were created to control the people not the arms: based on racism, sexism, relgion, etc.; the elitism thinking of many at all levels across this Nation akin to this Governor of New Jersey; those who lust for power, greed, and other worldly possesions; and fear of trival in nature like switchblades being made illegal in the 1950's due to a movie named West Side Story about gangs, some government employee worried about game poaching the 1930's during the depression started the control of silencers, some government employee worried about machine guns in the 1930's because some gangs used them, and the list goes on and on - do you see the pattern here ? Just like this New Jersey Governor, many or is it maybe most in government power fear the people or distrust the people ? Therefore want to control the people by making laws against keeping and bearing ARMS by the people. Those in government power certainly are not trying to protect the people, since they are disarming and restricting the people who obey the laws, whereas all the Criminals do not give a tinker's dam about the laws Congress passes or Congress itself, therefore the laws are of zero value other than giving some people (lawyers (akin to rattlesnakes), judges, jailers, and Peace Officers) a job at whatever level in government. There is no disputing the fact, the more Citizens are ARMED then the lower the crime rate and vice versus, i.e.compare the crime rate of Arizone or Wyoming or Idaho or Montana versus New Jersey.

Bring back and use the Death Penalty (Hanging or Shot - no drugs and no gas (I am sensitive to environmental concerns) on a regular basis for "first time offense" of murder, rape, any kind of robbery, car theft (just like horse theft use to be),and drug dealers - no deals, short appeal time, very quick trial then death. The crime rates will fall to an every low rate, in a matter of weeks if not days. All lawyers, judges, jailers, and Peace Officers put out of work due to the low crime rate and hardly no one in jail, will be given a job on the South or North Border to assist in "sealing" the "no man's land zone or dead man zone" the entire length of borders.

My Great Grand Father, My Grand Father, and My Father all said the same thing, "always remember, if the Federal Government ran the Sahara Desert there would be a shortage of sand".

"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." This quote has also been attributed to David Crockett and is consistent with his very-limited-government philosophy. In opinion he is the best Congressman there ever has been. Research the internet for yourself.
We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.—Albert Einstein

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. Thomas Jefferson

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Wayne


Thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaPA8fGeRUc&feature=related
3 minutes 46 seconds - more than worth every second - lifetime of learning

Col. David Crockett (The Alamo):
"Republic. I like the sound of the word."

///// SIGNED /////////



http://blog.nj.com/njv_scott_bach/2009/07/corzine_to_millions_of_honest.html
Corzine to Millions of Honest Gun Owners: You're Potential Criminals and a Threat to Public Safety
Posted by Scott L. Bach, Esq. July 21, 2009 5:56PM

Memo to the millions of American citizens who have managed to qualify for government permits to carry firearms: you are "potential criminals," and you are "a threat to our citizens' safety and well-being," even though you have passed criminal background checks and satisfied state firearms proficiency standards. That according to New Jersey governor Jon Corzine (D), who apparently thinks that the path to re-election later this year is paved by trampling the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Governor Corzine and other far-left New Jersey politicians are beside themselves over an imminent floor vote in the U.S. Senate on the Thune-Vitter Amendment to S. 1390 which would require states like New Jersey, which refuse to recognize the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, to honor Right-to-Carry permits issued by other states, much in the way driver's licenses are honored throughout the country.

Calling the legislation "an egregious threat to communities across the country," a press release issued by Governor Corzine makes the revealing statement that more guns, "especially in the hands of potential criminals, do not make us safer." The statement exposes the Governor's fundamentally misguided view that anyone who chooses to exercise the Constitutional right to bear arms for personal protection, even with government sanction, is a potential criminal from whom the public needs to be protected.

"We will never compromise, not even one inch, where public safety is concerned," concludes the Governor's press release, revealing Corzine's lack of even a basic understanding of the right of self defense and the part that Right-to-Carry plays within it.

In an era where vicious criminal predators prey upon the weak and vulnerable, the U.S. Supreme Court has surprisingly held that police owe no duty to protect individual citizens and cannot be held accountable when they fail to do so. This means that from the time you dial 911 until the police arrive, you're on your own. Right-to-Carry helps level the playing field in the gravest extreme, and offers victims a fighting chance while they wait for help to arrive.

Approximately 40 states comprehend this simple truth and recognize the Right-to-Carry. Wherever Right-to-Carry laws have passed, there has been a corresponding and sustained drop in violent crime rates, for one simple reason: criminals go somewhere else when they think their victims may be armed. When the predators can't tell the difference between the lions and the sheep, the whole flock is safer. Right-to-Carry thus benefits not only the law-abiding citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights, but also those around them who don't.

Think about it: every mass killing in recent memory has had one thing in common: the victims were unarmed and unable to defend themselves against violent and brutal surprise attacks by predators. Right-to-Carry helps even out the odds, and criminals know it. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed.

The Thune-Vitter Amendment expands Right-to-Carry and will enhance public safety, contrary to Governor Corzine's ill-advised view. It recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines.

New Jersey's policies on gun rights are as backwards as its policies on taxes. It's time for elected officials who swore to uphold the Constitution to stop trampling on our protected gun rights.

 

[Willo]

I'm a little freaked out

as a Californian, there will be more people from out of state able to carry in California than there will be Californians able to carry *in their own state*! That's crazy.

There will be a HUGE, and I mean HUGE run on Florida/Utah out-of-state permits from Californians in the weeks after this passes, IF it passes.

And if it passes I will be utterly shocked.

 

[Faitmaker]

I'm sure you recognize that the consensus is that the 14th amendment was intended to 'incorporate' the amendments, and that the old Supreme Court precedents holding otherwise (Slaughterhouse, etc.) are dead wrong. I'm not saying that there is no evidence to the contrary or that there may be a constititional scholar or two that agrees with you, but it is against the weight of the evidence.

I would say that the consensus is not that at all! If that were so, all the amendments would already be incorporated. Instead, you only have the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, MOST of the Fifth Amendment, and some of the Seventh. Can you post SCOTUS evidence that shows that all the old precedents are now wrong? Don't bother with Heller because DC follows Federal law. It is absolutely governed by the 2nd Amendment. All we got with that decision was the SCOTUS finally saying we have a natural right to self-defense and that the 2nd speaks to the people's right and not the other BS anti's talk about.

We can argue about whether that is good policy, but it seems pretty clear that this was the intent of the 14th amendment.

I have to disagree. You have given an assertion but provided no argument.

We fought a big war, and passed a constitutional amendment so that the states can't deny the right to bear arms (as well as the other 7 original amendments).

The 14th was passed to make sure the States followed the 13th so that African-Americans were considered citizens.

The language is not perfectly clear, but almost everybody that has studied it thinks that was the intent. Maybe you disagree, and maybe the Supreme Court will too. But IMHO if you want to change the constitution back to the way it was before the Civil War, you and others others who have similar policy goals should work to amend the constitution and repeal the 14th amendment instead of just ignoring what it says.

WHOA. I don't want to change anything and I'm not ignoring ANYTHING the 14th says. I'm ignoring the fact that SCOTUS has applied what it says to *SOME* of the Amendments and not all. Either Due Process applies to all the Amendments or none of them. Incorporation is an interpretation of the Constitution and I don't see why the robes have any more power to interpret than you or I. Please show me in the Constitution an amendment that makes all the amendments apply to the States.

I like "state rights" and federalism too, and would love to see the courts put some teeth in their commerce clause jurisprudence.

The concept of state rights and federalism contradicts each other. I don't think you understand what Federalism is.

It would be even better if Congress would respect the constitution on its own, but I won't hold my breath. The expanded commerce clause is the real enemy of federalism.

Federalism wants everything to flow through a central government. I think you mean anti-federalism.

Unlike the 14th amendment with the bill of rights, there was never any constitutional amendment to expand the commerce clause.

Again, the 14th Amendment doesn't even speak about the Bill of Rights. It's main intent was to bind the States to the 13th by saying that all people had equal protection of law. It was years later that SCOTUS decided that the Due Process clause could be used to incorporate certain amendments to the States. Interpretation.

I can see possibly objecting to something like that law Congress passed a few years ago protecting gun makers from state lawsuits; that was a really questionable application of congressional power under the commerce clause. But this bill we are talking about now is being done in accordance with a constitutional amendment passed 141 years ago. Congress and the courts are not ignoring the constitution, they are implementing it.

Again, I disagree but you are entitled to your opinion.

Anyway, cheers. We will see how Senator Thune's amendment plays out. Both of my Senators are on board (one of whom is running scared for reelection, so he is very pro RKBA this year).

I believe Ohio is on board too. However, just because I disagree with you here doesn't mean I am against the RKBA. I just disagree how it is trying to be applied to the States. I disagree with incorporation especially with it being applied selectively. Cheers to you to mate.

 

[ThrottleJockey72]

as a Californian, there will be more people from out of state able to carry in California than there will be Californians able to carry *in their own state*! That's crazy.

There will be a HUGE, and I mean HUGE run on Florida/Utah out-of-state permits from Californians in the weeks after this passes, IF it passes.

And if it passes I will be utterly shocked.

You really aren't paying attention are you? In order for the reciprocity amendment to apply to you, your permit MUST BE ISSUED BY THE STATE IN WHICH YOU RESIDE! It appears you haven't even taken the 30 seconds to read the bill or the other 30 seconds to read the proposed amendment, so why on earth would you comment and look ridiculous in doing so? When passed, this action will essentially render non-resident permits obsolete and useless.

 

[green-grizzly]

Faitmaker:

I appreciate your condescension when you say that I don't understand federalism.

I think federalism is the concept that there are sovereign states and a sovereign federal government, each with their own sets of powers that are pretty mutually exclusive. Thus, there are certain things that are within the state's power and other things that are within the federal government's power. The federal powers are clearly laid out in the constitution, and by default everything else is a state power (or a right reserved to the people). So I don't see "state's rights" and federalism being incompatible. States have a "right" to do certain things, as does the federal government. This comports with the dictionary definition ("A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units."). The definition you give of federalism is entirely incompatible with common English usage. That kind of makes argument pointless.

"Anti-federalist" is an old term for somebody who opposes the ratification of the US constitution. They didn't want this system of divided power. They lost.

As to the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment, I will not make an argument that has been made many times before. See this brief if you are interested in the consensus view: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cac_cert_stage.pdf. You seem very sure that you are right and that everybody agrees with you, but that is not the case (although I of course agree that the wrongly decided Slaughterhouse cases agree with your point, although they have been largely mooted by incorporation through the due process clause). Most constitutional scholars agree that the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause has been wrongly interpreted by the courts. The fellows who prepared that brief are the most respected guys in the field, and the two or three other big shots agree with them. The 14th was intended to apply the first 8 amendments to the states. You can of course continue to believe otherwise, and I am not saying your argument is totally groundless, but I think you are wrong to claim that is the consensus.

You act as if the Supreme Court precedent holding that the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment is worthless is conclusive on that point, but then seem to complain that the Supreme Court precedent incorporating the most of the Bill of Rights through the due process clause of the 14th amendment (soon to include the second amendment) is horribly wrong. Which is it? Is the Supreme Court always wrong or always right? It is of course neither, and lawyers, scholars, and even us lowly citizens can read the documents and discover their meaning if we are honest about the use of language.

 

[green-grizzly]

Willo:

Sadly, I don't think Californians will be able to get Utah permits to avoid California law.

a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

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

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

This law does not apply if you are in your own state. It would allow New Yorkers to get Utah permits for when they go to California though. That is odd.

 

[pbearperry]

Will someone tell me why this bill would not work,because the Fed Cop Carry Bill seems to be working pretty much?