Would the impending gun control deal make the potential SCOTUS gun case obsolete?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


If this potential gun control package goes thru and the carry portion is not stripped from it, it would allow concealed carry in all 50 states.



Would this make Kachalsky v. Cacace, which is potentially going to be heard by SCOTUS soon obsolete and no longer needed to be heard since people could than carry outside their home in all 50 states?




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...gun-owners-seller-to-carry-sell-across-state/

.
Manchin-Toomey deal could allow gun owners, sellers to carry, sell across state lines

Published April 13, 2013

FoxNews.com


The deal between Sens. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey on the gun-controlled legislation scheduled for formal Senate debate next week could make it easier to carry concealed weapons across state lines.

The provision is similar to the Interstate Commerce Reform Act of 2012, which was sponsored by two Republicans -- Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah. The legislation failed despite strong support from the National Rifle Association.

The proposal essentially grants states "reciprocity" regarding concealed carry provisions.
.

.

 

[MagnumWill]

This has most certainly peaked my interest as well. Also, if this was to say that "FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW" - what other sectors could this apply in? (It would imply that that CO is a free state, and pot is STILL illegal).

It's a very enticing sell, it just seems like the law hierarchy just doesn't make sense.

Oh wait - that's right

 

[Deus Machina]

I very much doubt the CCL section will go through as we hope. It will either be removed, or passed as a precursor to "if we have to let people carry across state lines, we have to regulate what it takes to get a license." How do you want to bet that collection of new laws would go?

So, no. It's not irrelevant. It would send a message to congress that the SCOTUS has drawn the line right at this spot, or make a precedent on what they can claim as overstepping bounds or even label as unconstitutional.

 

[Deanimator]

The bottom line is the whole thing is a con.

Whether Manchin and Toomey are running the con or having it run on them is utterly irrelevant.

It's still a con.

No more gun laws.
No more lies.
NO, I REFUSE.

 

[ChaoSS]

Granting state reciprocity won't help people who live in states like CA, where the local LE can deny a permit because they don't feel you have a demonstrated need to carry concealed, and isn't that the whole point of the potential supreme court case?

 

[joeschmoe]

No. The bill will not allow carry in 50 states. Only those states who have reciprocity to give. It will still be illegal in NY, Cali, Illinois, etc. It changes nothing for those states that already hate the 2nd.

If the fed tries to take away police powers from the states under this law, they will probably lose and have that portion struck down as unConstitutional.

 

[CapnMac]

I keep reading Toomey-Manchin (enough to have to repress a desire to label it as Looney-Munchkin), and the cross-state line carry seems ok, but it retains too much FOPA for my liking.
That's because FOPA only gives a defense against prosecution only if you are disarmed (weapons have to be unloaded and locked separately and away from passengers--that's not "carry").

So the T-M Amendment would only really grant reciprocity to those states that already allow reciprocity. Which could be as few as 20 states.

Also, it does not truly answer the problem--the one where a majority has to prove their innocence rather than a minority have their prohibition being fully known.