Would you support a FEDERAL CCW system? (long)

[epijunkie67]

Vermont and Alaska don't mind at all.

True. I stand corrected. Now if only we could get the rest of the country to think this way. Unfortunately, my point is correct for the other 48 states.

 

[Graystar]

This should already be covered by the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution ... which is why we can drive in other states with only one drivers license.

This is a common misconception. The “full faith and credit” clause does not mean that one state must enforce the laws of another state. It only means that a state must accept documents and rulings as being valid. That is to say, if a driver’s license from one state says the driver is 30 years old, then another state should faithfully accept that the driver is 30 years old. Actual enforcement of such documents or rulings has always been limited to matters of right, because every state is bound to protect our rights.

You can drive across the country with a driver’s license from your home state because every state that you drive through has passed legislation allowing non-residents to drive within the state as long as they have a valid license from their state of residence. However, this legislation does not purport to treat a person as if he is driving in his own state. It only means that a licensed driver from one state will be treated as a driver licensed under the laws of the current state he’s driving in.

For example, a 15 yr old with a valid Montana driver’s license cannot drive in New Jersey for another three years. That is because you must be 18 years old to drive in New Jersey. New Jersey recognizes the license as valid, but will only enforce it under its laws, not Montana’s.

From New York State law:

2. A person of the age of sixteen years and upwards who shall be a nonresident of this state, and a resident of a state, territory, federal district or foreign country having laws, with which such person has complied, which require such person, in order to operate a motor vehicle or motorcycle therein, to be licensed, may operate or drive a motor vehicle or motorcycle on the public highways of this state without being so licensed under this chapter, provided, however, that the recognition granted under this subdivision shall, with respect to a person under the age of eighteen years, only permit the operation of a motor vehicle or motorcycle in this state in accordance with the same restrictions imposed upon New York residents operating or driving motor vehicles or motorcycles with class DJ or MJ licenses under subdivision three of section five hundred one of this chapter.

New York State Vehicle & Traffic law
Article 3, Section 250

 

[dpesec]

The reason I understand it that Drivers liscencs are allowed is the "full faith and credit clause" without that things would be different. The interesting question is why doesn't that apply to CCW?

 

[Sam]

No.

The Fed Govts only business is running a military, keeping the roads open and getting the mail delivered. They are already in serious violation of the Constutution. Authorize them to license another violation?

NO

Sam

 

[Graystar]

The interesting question is why doesn't that apply to CCW?

The answer is in the post right above yours.

 

[artherd]

Absolutely NOT.

The state bans (oooooh, sorry, 'permits') are already illegal.

Since I will not sanction criminal activity, I can't abide by a federal system!



Sounds real good, dosen't it? In reality, if it were shal-issue, I'd likely be all over that.

 

[RealGun]

A federal law would be a direct confrontation with "shall not be infringed". States can get away with making the bearing of arms a privilege, at least they have so far, but the feds cannot. Rather than support such a concept as national licensing, in my opinion a gun rights supporter should hold out for insisting that the 2nd Amendment applies to States and that, being contrary to the 14th Amendment, all licensing laws are fundamentally unconstitutional (in spite of NRA having recommended licensing 75 years ago).

Working within the current status quo, it is better to be patient and allow States to be more cooperative in recognizing licenses from other States. National licensing is a poor strategy to bring licensing to States unfriendly to guns and where licensing is currently non-existent or virtually so.

There is no way to force States to cooperate with licensing, because it would bring a confrontation with the constitutional basis for what they are doing.

Passing a national licensing law would give the feds power they don't currently have and would totally ignore the 2nd Amendment once again. In my estimation, those who would support such a law believe or have accepted that bearing arms is a privilege, not a right.

The only way I can see for national licensing to fly is to revise the 2nd Amendment. That is exactly how the interim constitution for Iraq reads. Possession of firearms requires a national license. Good luck on getting a license. Obviously that would be a giant step backward.

 

[GT]

so.. let me get this straight... create yet another unConstitutional bureaucracy that has control over Concealed Carry so that one unelected official can change the rules and parameters at will (cf. EPA).

This is (supposed to be) a Republic made up from semi-autonomous states, not a central government Democracy. By even thinking "Federal" you have already bought into the Klintonian plan of creating a Socialist Workers' Paradise Police State (like England).

I feel it is misleading to argue on the Federal level. The DC "government" is only supposed to protect the citizens, deal with "furriners" and smooth interstate commerce (real interstate commerce).
If you are talking about War, Homeland Security, I-95 or CAFTA then great, Federal it is.
All the Feds should be doing about guns is not infringing upon our rights to keep and bear.

It's called "begging the question"; where you create a false premise and then argue logically based on that false premise.
Before you create a brilliant logical argument you should first consider whether the premise itself bears scrutiny.

G

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I would support a SCOTUS ruling that the Second Amendment, via the Fourteenth Amendment, prevents government at any level from regulating the ownership and carry of any weapon, but I would not favor Federal legislation establishing a regulatory scheme for national concealed carry. That would be unconstitutional, as the Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to regulate any aspect of weapons ownership or carry. In fact, it specifically forbids it via the Second Amendment.

 

[DelayedReaction]

Absolutely not. Although the idea of nationwide reciprocity is wonderful, it's constrained by the fact that the government agency in charge of controlling it would be the BATF.

Which I'm sure we all love.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Absolutely not. Although the idea of nationwide reciprocity is wonderful, it's constrained by the fact that the government agency in charge of controlling it would be the BATF.

Which I'm sure we all love.

Not only do we not love it, it is an unconstitutional agency of the Federal Government, and needs to be shut down pronto. If I am wrong, show me where the Constitution authorizes the regulation of alcohol, tobacco and/or firearms. The Federal Government has only those powers granted, all others belonging to the States or the people, respectively. Anyone in DC ever heard of a little thing called the Tenth Amendment?

 

[Gray Peterson]

HR1243 is what I support that would in fact give us national CCW, that is CCW reciprocity. Keeps fedgov involvement to a MINIMUM.