Why no Fed Concealed carry permit?

[Birch Knoll]

Because it does so by invalidating the laws of the 50 states. All 50 states have laws concerning the carry and concealment of weapons.

OK. Then it seems to me that you must believe (1) That state laws regulating the carry of firearms are proper and constitutional, and (2) that every federal law enforcement officer carrying weapons in a state is in violation of that state's law?

 

[jon_in_wv]

You are totally confusing a LEO carrying a firearm in the performance of his duties and carried concealed for personal protection. Not to mention LEOSA covers ALL LEOs, not just Federal Officers. If your argument is the state laws are unconstitutional then the argument should be that its proper for the Federal Government to strike down those laws, not to invalidate them for a single class of people. It seems you are being argumentative without a whole lot of info on the subject.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Not, I'm not confusing anything at all. I'm asking if the federal government has any power to authorize anyone to carry a firearm. If they can authorize, say an FBI agent to carry, then clearly the authority exists. Now it's just a question of whom they deign to authorize. I see no reason that the authority would suddenly become invalid when they authorize all active and retired law enforcement officers. If you can explain why, please do.

I wasn't arguing anything about the constitutionality of state carry laws. Your argument seemed to presume that those laws are proper, though.

It seems you are being argumentative without a whole lot of info on the subject.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to get you to follow your own logic.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Nope. I'd rather not hijack a national CCW thread to educate you about LEOSA. You can go about your own education or start another thread and I'd be more than happy to respond to it. My original comment was for the furtherance of the conversation of the topic, not to having a contest with one person.

 

[Birch Knoll]

As you wish. But this is ironic:

I'd rather not hijack a national CCW thread to educate you about LEOSA.

LEOSA is, of course, the only national CCW law on the books.

 

[kludge]

Because it does so by invalidating the laws of the 50 states. All 50 states have laws concerning the carry and concealment of weapons. LEOSA makes all of those law void for a certain class of people. I would love you to show me where the Constitution allows that.

"shall be the supreme law of the land"

When each state joined the union or ratified the contitution they de facto accepted the constitution as the supreme law of the land. If they then passed a law to violate the second amendment it is null and void.

This is the only interpretation that we should be willing to accept.

It was the racist post Civil War court that invented the doctrine of selective incorporation, and we're still paying for it 150 years later.

The states never had the right to violate the constitution. Not before and not after the civil war. States don't have rights. People have rights. States have powers, those powers come from the will of the people. The people are the sovereigns in this country.

The rights and powers not enumerated in the constitution are reserved to the people and the states. Rights/people. Powers/States. The Second Amendment IS ENUMERATED, and it is reserved to the people's right NOT the states.

 

[kludge]

Exactly. If the feds CAN'T then why the heck do states get away with it?
I still can't comprehend how the the states get to rewrite the constitution? If the constitution protects something, but you state legislature decides otherwise, what is the point of the constitution in the first place?

Same answer. They can't. They do. We have to change that. How do they get away with it? Well... we let them.

 

[brickeyee]

When each state joined the union or ratified the contitution they de facto accepted the constitution as the supreme law of the land. If they then passed a law to violate the second amendment it is null and void.

Better do some more research.

Until the 14th amendment was passed the Constitution was viewed as binding and limiting the powers of the federal government, NOT the states.

 

[paramedic70002]

A Federal CC permit would be redundant because there is no Federal law against CC. On the Federal level, the 2A really IS your CC permit.

Try that in a Federal courthouse, National Park building, etc.

It would cost too much, like in NYC, the license was $500.00 or so when I left in 94, every 3-5years can't remember, I can pull an old license if you wnat to know time frame, all I can remember was saying "ouch", every time I got a renewal in the mail.

It would cost $0.00 to pass a Federal law that says:

Any state's permit to carry a concealed firearm shall be honored by all fifty states and all territories and protectorates of the United States of America for the purposes of carrying a firearm openly or concealed.

LEOSA is, of course, the only national CCW law on the books.

And it was billed as the camel's nose under the tent that would bring forth with trumpets blowing the right to all citizens. Still waiting.

...

 

[Midwest]

They could easily make a carry permit for your $2000. You would be allowed to carry at approved federal ranges on Tuesdays if there is a full moon. Otherwise you must keep your weapons locked up at your local police station.

I would not doubt the gun grabbers have thought of a scheme like this. There was talk about licensing gun owners and including a 'arsenal license' (in Brady II) as well. The scheme was to have a very low licensing fee at the beginning and raise it dramatically later on. The 'arsenal license' would later also double and triple and thus making the scenario you described a very real possibility (minus the full moon Tuesday part).

 

[Birch Knoll]

LEOSA is, of course, the only national CCW law on the books.

And it was billed as the camel's nose under the tent that would bring forth with trumpets blowing the right to all citizens. Still waiting.

If HR822 isn't the next logical step toward delivering on that promise, then I'm not sure what is.

 

[brickeyee]

And it was billed as the camel's nose under the tent that would bring forth with trumpets blowing the right to all citizens. Still waiting.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

A proclamation by the pigs who control the farm in the novel :”Animal Farm”, by George Orwell.

 

[Birch Knoll]

A proclamation by the pigs who control the farm in the novel

Heh. That's appropriate.

 

[mortablunt]

The Federal Government doesn't really want to get involved in gun laws unless there is a sense that they need to. Besides, do you really want for there to be a national federal permit to supplant all state permits? There are a lot of states with large voting power in the HOR which do not like carry, such as California, New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois. So even if our own guys managed to get through a generally nice federal carry bill, like say a shall-issue, or even just a really lenient may-issue, the anti-gun people would demand a pretty steep price in return. They might demand a ban on private sales, handgun registration, impose purchasing limits, put in an assault weapons ban, put a ban on certain NFA items, or mandate that all guns meeting a sporting purposes check. FOPA 86 was set to be a great victory for us until Senator John Hughes of New Jersey decided to add an amendment to close the NFA MG registry.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

There is no Federal Driver's License, no Federal Marriage License, no Federal Hunting License other than duck stamps AFAIK. Remember that our legal system was not planned, rather it has simply developed. No Federal Highway Patrol, AFAIK the Interstates are funded by the Federal Government but their administration, including policing, has been turned over to the states. No logic or Master Plan behind it, that simply the way it is.
I belive that Federal Agencies-the FBI, e.g. do not have any "License to Carry", rather Congress has authorized them to carry to be able to carry out their duties.

 

[Birch Knoll]

I belive that Federal Agencies-the FBI, e.g. do not have any "License to Carry", rather Congress has authorized them to carry to be able to carry out their duties.

Exactly. Congress has the power to authorize persons to carry weapons. How about that?

 

[jon_in_wv]

Congress does in fact have laws on the books to authorize Federal Officers to carry firearms in the performance of their duties. In fact if you look at the State's laws they also make concessions to their own laws to provide for the same issue. Comparing LEOSA to those laws is a red herring. You are trying to confuse the issue by interjecting another unrelated issue to prove your point. LEOSA has nothing to do with authorizing Federal Officers to carry firearms to enforce federal laws NOR DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH RECTIFYING UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LAWS. The only thing it does do is invalidate and void legally accepted laws by sovereign states for one class of people. The rest of the population is bound by those laws. If you can't see the difference between those laws you are either not knowledgeable of the laws in question or you just refuse to admit the difference. Either way is fine with me. I qualify and carry under LEOSA. In nine years I retire from the agency I work for and I'll have the ability to carry a concealed weapon in all 50 states AND its territories until the day I die and no state law can say otherwise. If you think thats fair good for you. That is why the government gets away with it. Personally I don't think its fair. I think the 2nd Amendment should be enough for us all to enjoy that same right, not just certain government officials.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Congress does in fact have laws on the books to authorize Federal Officers to carry firearms in the performance of their duties.

I'm pleased we agree on that. Do you believe that's a legitimate exercise of federal power?

In fact if you look at the State's laws they also make concessions to their own laws to provide for the same issue.

Yes, most or all do. But they need not; even if state law didn't exempt federal officers from any state prohibition on the carrying of weapons, the federal authority would be sufficient.

Comparing LEOSA to those laws is a red herring.

How so? Both are instances of federal law authorizing some class of persons to carry weapons.

You are trying to confuse the issue by interjecting another unrelated issue to prove your point

I assure you I am not trying to confuse anything.

NOR DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH RECTIFYING UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LAWS.

There is no need to shout. And I don't know what you mean when you refer to "rectifying unconstitutional state laws". As I understood your position, LEOSA is objectionable because it "invalidates the laws of the 50 states". My position is that it does no such thing; it independently authorizes the carrying of weapons under the laws of the United States.

The only thing it does do is invalidate and void legally accepted laws by sovereign states for one class of people.

It certainly only benefits one class of people -- law enforcement officers. Yippee for them, not so much for the rest of us.

The only thing it does do is invalidate and void legally accepted laws by sovereign states for one class of people.

So you don't like it because it benefits cops and not the rest of us. That's fine, I get that. But our system of government means that we do have two levels of government and law, and federal law supercedes state law. It's not unconstitutional; it's exactly how the constitution says it's supposed to work.

Now, just because it's legal doesn't necessarily mean it's a dandy idea. Maybe LEOSA is a bad idea; I don't particularly think so, but I could be wrong. And just because I may not like a law or think it's a Bad Idea(tm), doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

If you can't see the difference between those laws you are either not knowledgeable of the laws in question or you just refuse to admit the difference.

I think we'd have a more enjoyable and enlightening exchange if we both assumed that the other is (a) reasonably intelligent, (b) has at least a basic grasp of the law, and (c) has a sincere belief in gun rights.

Or we could just flame away at each other. But I don't have much interest in that.

 

[x1wildone]

I am still on the fence on H822 but I lean towards not supporting it. An example would be that the feds control interstate tax dollars, when such things as a seat belt law are passed and the states balk, then the fed just with holds the interstate tax dollars until the states cave to the new law.

 

[dogrunner]

If one really wants to touch the sticky wicket relative to LEOSA or Federal police powers I'd challenge anyone to cite ANY section of the powers granted to the Federal Government that authorize ANY civil police powers!

Remember, government does not have 'rights', simply powers. Those powers are strictly enumerated, and in fact the tenth amendment clearly states that those not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or the people...

Now, I'm LEOSA qualified and I most certainly enjoy being able to carry in circumstances that're proscribed by some jurisdictions, still I am in accord with Jon (in my home state, by the way). Bottom line is that what the 'master may grant, the master may forbid'...........and that point is the real one and well worth remembering!

 

[kludge]

Better do some more research.

Until the 14th amendment was passed the Constitution was viewed as binding and limiting the powers of the federal government, NOT the states.

History is like religion; it's all about what you want to believe. I read history differently than you apparently.

 

[brickeyee]

I read history differently than you apparently.

Then why was the 14th amendment even needed?

History is NOT like religion.

 

[gopguy]

House vote on HR 822 tomorrow. Call your Rep.

 

[JERRY]

why?

isnt the federal government over reaching enough as it is?

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

The Second Amendment should be the only "permit" we need (and something very much along these lines is already or about to be in place in a few states), but as long as we are stuck with a permit system at all, I don't want the federal government involved.