Article: GOP Senators Push for Concealed-Carry State Reciprocity Law

[dcmdon]

This is the beauty of it....wait for it......there is no federal law extending/mandating reciprocity wrt drivers licenses issued by states.

Fed Gov has no authority wrt who can carry and where they can carry.

There's nothing in the US Constitution at all that grants the fed gov the power/authority to regulate rkba of individuals OR the regulations that individual states may draw up.

t.

This is true, but the consitution does specifically state that:

1) the governmental limits on rights enumerated in the bill of rights also extend to the states.
2) the federal government has the authority to pass legislation to force states to extend the rights in the bill of rights.
3) the supremacy clause applies here.

So if the federal government believes that a state is unconstitutionally abridging its citizens 2A rights, it is justified in fixing that.

The problem is that the fix may hurt those in states where gun righs are respected.

The solution to this is to craft the law in such a way that it does not apply to states that respect 2a rights. i.e the law sets a minimum threshold for 2A rights, not a maximum.

Not everything the federal government does is bad. Just most of it. Some of the things it does that are within the Constitution can be helpful.

Remember folks, we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If it weren't for the federal government racial equality under the law might still not have come to the southern states.

 

[snd1t]

http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hr578/BILLS-113hr578ih.pdf

So he can read the bill, I couldn't find anything great about it

These one size fits no one solutions to a problem created entirely by big gov only create more problems imho

 

[snd1t]

This is true, but the consitution does specifically state that:

1) the governmental limits on rights enumerated in the bill of rights also extend to the states.

Actually the constitution doesn't say that at all.

The Constitution as written is an outline for the establishment of a federal government complete with the powers granted TO that federal gov.

If you would like to reference specific language/sections to support your "Interpretation" go for it.

2) the federal government has the authority to pass legislation to force states to extend the rights in the bill of rights.

Actually it doesn;'t as per above

3) the supremacy clause applies here.

Actually it doesn't.

As per Art 6

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof" is the key here....

So lets go back to Art 1 Section 8 and look at the 18 enumerated powers which outline the subjects/issues congress may pass laws wrt......anything there that grants Congress the power or authority to pass any such law wrt concealed carry or RKBA?

In a word.....NO.

 

[mikem317]

I like the idea of national reciprocity but it clearly runs afoul of the Constitution. My guess is that some GOP rep/Senator will justify it on Commerce Clause (sounds familiar doesn't it?) The other thing that's scary about this is that it reminds me of that classic Thomas Jefferson quote: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." Basically, once the political trade winds turn, then it's probably going to be rescinded. POOF!

At the same time, one's right to self-defense shouldn't end at the state line.

In a perfect world, there would be no federal gun laws (in the spirt and direct black letter text of 2A), and each state in the union can decide if it's going to hand out CCWs or just go full Constitutional Carry (ideally).

 

[willbdavis]

Heller is incorporated against the states via the 14th. That's the McDonald ruling, right?

So a similar SCOTUS ruling regarding bearing arms outside the home could also be incorporated against the States too, right?

One that is upheld it would be pretty hard to defend laws prohibiting people from other States from exercising their 2A rights.

Am I missing something?

 

[snd1t]

Heller is incorporated against the states via the 14th. That's the McDonald ruling, right?

So a similar SCOTUS ruling regarding bearing arms outside the home could also be incorporated against the States too, right?

One that is upheld it would be pretty hard to defend laws prohibiting people from other States from exercising their 2A rights.

Am I missing something?

Yes

You're missing the part where this entire approach is predicated on a wholly unconstitutional over reach of the federal gov that hinges on the whims of a single political appointee to a supreme court that has no constitutional power to make a ruling on the subject at hand.

Its only a matter of time before this blows up spectacularly in our faces.

The solution is not to further encourage a one size fits none federal solution.....rather its to solve the problem one state at a time.

Vote with your dollars and your feet and things will change and change permanently.

 

[mikem317]

Heller is incorporated against the states via the 14th. That's the McDonald ruling, right?

So a similar SCOTUS ruling regarding bearing arms outside the home could also be incorporated against the States too, right?

One that is upheld it would be pretty hard to defend laws prohibiting people from other States from exercising their 2A rights.

Am I missing something?

There's basically three different ways I see a "national reciprocity" thing taking effect: This is one of them via new SCOTUS jurisprudence (e.g. Incorporated via the 14th - privs and immunities?) Not sure if I like this approach though.

The other is via Congress like what the article was talking about. It would have to go through the normal legislative process and signed into law. I doubt Obama would sign it even it it was attached to a new economic stimulus bill. Been wrong before though. This would have to be done via Commerce Clause which is already freaking overexpanded we can begin driving semis through it.

The third way is via the states. This is definitely more painstaking, but it's Constitutional, it's arguably longer lasting in that in case some state falls to the Moonbats, e.g. Colorado, then there's a built in firewall. Plus you don't run into the whole "easy cometh, easy goeth" problem if it's done federally.

 

[dcmdon]

Yes

You're missing the part where this entire approach is predicated on a wholly unconstitutional over reach of the federal gov that hinges on the whims of a single political appointee to a supreme court that has no constitutional power to make a ruling on the subject at hand.

Its only a matter of time before this blows up spectacularly in our faces.

The solution is not to further encourage a one size fits none federal solution.....rather its to solve the problem one state at a time.

Vote with your dollars and your feet and things will change and change permanently.

So are you saying that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to force the states to respects the natural rights acknowledged in the bill of rights? Yes or no?



Re your points above:

Google necessary and proper clause

As well as the general welfare clause

- - - Updated - - -

Yes

You're missing the part where this entire approach is predicated on a wholly unconstitutional over reach of the federal gov that hinges on the whims of a single political appointee to a supreme court that has no constitutional power to make a ruling on the subject at hand.

Its only a matter of time before this blows up spectacularly in our faces.

The solution is not to further encourage a one size fits none federal solution.....rather its to solve the problem one state at a time.

Vote with your dollars and your feet and things will change and change permanently.

You need to read some of Judge Napolitano's books. I suspect you will enjoy them. Good stuff.

 

[exo]

Lots of states already have reciprocity agreements with each other, all without "help" from FedGov. I fail to see what problem this solves. There's only a handful of states that A) have no reciprocity agreements and B) don't issue non-resident licenses.

As said before, there are a lot of risks with the precedent that such a law would establish.

 

[snd1t]

So are you saying that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to force the states to respects the natural rights acknowledged in the bill of rights? Yes or no?

Are you seriously implying that I wasn't clear enough in last post?

Where in Constitution was the Fed gov granted power/auth to do any such thing?

Simply put its just not a power granted to the federal gov.........its one that has been usurped.

Re your points above:

Google necessary and proper clause

You ought to read it......its the tail end of Art 1 Section 8

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

So once again...which of the 18 enumerated powers or any other part of the constitution grants the Congress the power to pass a bill wrt RKBA or forcing a state to accept a concealed carry permit of another state.

Simply put its just not there.

As well as the general welfare clause

Ever look up an 18th century definition of "Welfare" or how the word was used at the time the constitution was written?

OR how about this......have you bothered to look at what the word "Welfare" operates on (ie what words come before/after its use........

Trying to imply that congress would have the power to do any such thing under the construct of "Welfare" is akin to someone claiming that the use of "Regulated" in 2A means Regulate in 20th century context/definition.

For those of you not aware....18th century definition of Regulate in context would be below.

A well regulated watch is one that keeps proper time
A well regulated militia is one that is properly equipped and trained.

 

[dcmdon]

Lots of states already have reciprocity agreements with each other, all without "help" from FedGov. I fail to see what problem this solves. There's only a handful of states that A) have no reciprocity agreements and B) don't issue non-resident licenses.

As said before, there are a lot of risks with the precedent that such a law would establish.

Seriously, you don't see what problems this attempts to solve?

Seriously?? Do I need to send you news clippings?

I don't however disagree with you that a law like this could be dangerous.

 

[snd1t]

I don't however disagree with you that a law like this could be dangerous.

Just out of curiousity

Do you happen to have any examples where some big gov progressive one size fits no one usurped power from the states "solution" HASN'T made things worse?

From healthcare to education to agriculture to environment all we get when it comes to solutions that are a function of a usurped power are more problems.........

Edit....before some nut jumps on me and tries to call me some anarcho capitolist yada yada yada thats NOT what is being said here.

Fed gov has a job to do.....its just that in most cases its slipped the boundaries of the constitutional powers that we granted it and has run amok.......

 

[dcmdon]

JPK -

I have very very use for the federal (now national) government. However ensuring that people's civil rights are not denied by local "cultural preferences" is one of the few items I'm good with.

Re your question.

Lets see, how about women's suffrage.

How about the 14th Amendment, which is what I should have referenced earlier.
How about the 15th Amendment?

Some states have weak consittutions. For example, MA has nothing in its constitution guaranteeing anything with respect to "arms".

If, as you say, it was ok for states to infringe on people's rights based on their own laws, then there wouldn't be much appropriate use for the federal government. You are taking us back to the Articles of Confderation.

Now keep one thing in mind. When I talk about federal intervention to secure citizen's rights, I'm talking about natural rights. I'm not talking about ADHD Johnny's right to have a 1 on 1 teacher to student ratio in his special ed class.

I'm not talking about any of the wacko stretches that have been made to justify the use of the general welfare and commerce clause in the name of expanding government.

This is far far more fundamental. We are talking about using federal power to enforce a right explicitly guaranteed by the 2A and 14A.

 

[snd1t]

JPK -

I have very very use for the federal (now national) government. However ensuring that people's civil rights are not denied by local "cultural preferences" is one of the few items I'm good with.

Re your question.

Lets see, how about women's suffrage.

How about the 14th Amendment, which is what I should have referenced earlier.
How about the 15th Amendment?

Some states have weak consittutions. For example, MA has nothing in its constitution guaranteeing anything with respect to "arms".

If, as you say, it was ok for states to infringe on people's rights based on their own laws, then there wouldn't be much appropriate use for the federal government. You are taking us back to the Articles of Confderation.

Now keep one thing in mind. When I talk about federal intervention to secure citizen's rights, I'm talking about natural rights. I'm not talking about ADHD Johnny's right to have a 1 on 1 teacher to student ratio in his special ed class.

I'm not talking about any of the wacko stretches that have been made to justify the use of the general welfare and commerce clause in the name of expanding government.

This is far far more fundamental. We are talking about using federal power to enforce a right explicitly guaranteed by the 2A and 14A.

What do you think the Constitution was predicated upon?

Simply put....the articles.

If you read the two you will see many components that were simply carried over.

So what about the 14th or 15th amendments would grant the fed gov the power or authority to force a state to accept the permit of another OR force a state to do anything wrt RKBA

Please be specific........

And lets not even go down the false argument about Priv's and Immunities.........a little Coke and Blackstone are in order before dragging the discussion down that rat hole.......P&I do not equal rights

 

[snd1t]

Lets boil this down

Too many people have been dumbed down by public schools and are not taught anything of history let alone the CONTEXT within what few details they learn happened.

The Bill of Rights was not included to protect you from YOUR state.

It was to protect you AND your state from a run away central government.

In context.....what was it that the several states had fought against in the "revolution"

Obviously it was an all powerful central gov

In context the Constitution and subsequent BOR is an enumeration of the few limited powers that the States granted to the fed gov.....and in the BOR it reminded the Fed gov that "just in case its not clear you better not go anywhere near the following subjects that we fought a revolution over"

What was Lex/Concord about? Simply put a central gov trying to enact gun control

Same can be said about quartering troops in homes and restrictions on press etc etc.

The Constitution and BOR doesn't empower the fed gov.....rather it RESTRICTS IT.

 

[willbdavis]

14th amendment was ratified by the states. It is part of the constitution. Yes, the federal government has the power to force States to accept the bill of rights. This is settled law. You may not like it but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

 

[snd1t]

14th amendment was ratified by the states. It is part of the constitution. Yes, the federal government has the power to force States to accept the bill of rights. This is settled law. You may not like it but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

Oh boy....here comes the left's "Settled Law" silliness

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Ever heard of a couple of dead old guys by the names Coke and/or Blackstone....or maybe english common law?

Read up son.......

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/07/08/privileges-or-immunities/#.Uv1_M1Owe1E

Isn't it funny how 14a doesn't say anything about the issue at hand?

If you want to understand P&I I suggest you take a look at Corfield v. Coryell as a start.

 

[willbdavis]

I can always tell a weak argument when someone resorts to name calling.

So you're saying the 10 th invalidated the 14th?

The question you raise is whether an amendment can be unconstitutional. It is a good question.

I would argue that the whole point of our form of government is self government. There is a prescribed method for altering our constitution. One such way is by amending it. I see no prohibition against granting additional powers to the federal government not previously enumerated. Once the powers are in the amendment are they not thereafter enumerated?

 

[exo]

Seriously, you don't see what problems this attempts to solve?

Seriously?? Do I need to send you news clippings?

I don't however disagree with you that a law like this could be dangerous.

If this is really a problem, the solution should come from goading states into signing more reciprocity agreements with each other. This doesn't need FedGov intervention.

 

[snd1t]

So you're saying the 10 th invalidated the 14th?

No

The 14th has no bearing on the 10th

I STRONGLY suggest you read up on what priv or immunity actually is.

Most people today conflate priv or immunity with "Rights" as the word is used today and that is the equiv of stating that Regulate in the context of 2A is justification for Gun Control by the fed gov.

People too often try to use 21st century definitions/usage of words as a substitute for the useage/definitions of the words at the time they were used/written

- - - Updated - - -

If this is really a problem, the solution should come from goading states into signing more reciprocity agreements with each other. This doesn't need FedGov intervention.

Winner
Winner
Chicken
Dinner

 

[willbdavis]

No prob. I'll read more.

But again, it sounds like your saying the whole concept of incorporation is invalid. The point of the 14th was to force the southern states to accept civil rights for the recently freed slaves. Correct? Was this unconstitutional? If yes then I need to understand why. If no then I don't see why the 2A is also not included.

 

[exo]

No prob. I'll read more.

But again, it sounds like your saying the whole concept of incorporation is invalid. The point of the 14th was to force the southern states to accept civil rights for the recently freed slaves. Correct? Was this unconstitutional? If yes then I need to understand why. If no then I don't see why the 2A is also not included.

How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?

 

[willbdavis]

How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?

That's what I'd like to know.

 

[snd1t]

No prob. I'll read more.

But again, it sounds like your saying the whole concept of incorporation is invalid. The point of the 14th was to force the southern states to accept civil rights for the recently freed slaves. Correct? Was this unconstitutional? If yes then I need to understand why. If no then I don't see why the 2A is also not included.

Incorporation is something that was manufactured out of thin air

It has no constitutional foundation.

As for the 14A I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that its intent had anything to do with what people today refer to as "Civil Rights"

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Its just not there.

Priv or Immunity fundamentally speaks to the notion of equal freedom of movement, freedom from arbitrary taxes, freedom to own property etc.....but please read the link I provided previously.

Additionally I think it will make more sense to you if you read up on Corfield v. Coryell

Its all about context

We cannot understand things written in the 18th/19th century when looking at it through the lens of the 21st century.

Coke and Blackstone were commonly understood in the 18th/19th century but today people give you a "WTF" look when you make reference to them

 

[6Gears1Speed]

My guess is that the only way this would go anywhere is if the laws get much tougher nation wide in order to obtain a license. For all of it's miserable anti-gun and socialist agenda's, MA actually holds our privacy quite well. From what I understand they do not report to the nationwide database citing privacy concerns. Privacy regarding health records to be specific. I think they would make it mandatory to submit to the database in order to be part of the reciprocity. That will go over well. Just my own opinion and not based on anything I've read.

 

[willbdavis]

"As for the 14A I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that its intent had anything to do with what people today refer to as "Civil Rights""

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. Everyone in the world EXCEPT you thinks that's what it is about.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html

 

[snd1t]

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. Everyone in the world EXCEPT you thinks that's what it is about.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html

You do realize the irony of you quoting a big gov site to support your argument right?

Did you read http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/07/08/privileges-or-immunities/#.Uv1_M1Owe1E ?

 

[OfficerObie59]

This is the beauty of it....wait for it......there is no federal law extending/mandating reciprocity wrt drivers licenses issued by states.

Fed Gov has no authority wrt who can carry and where they can carry.

There's nothing in the US Constitution at all that grants the fed gov the power/authority to regulate rkba of individuals OR the regulations that individual states may draw up.

Quite the opposite.....2A is a prohibition on the Fed Gov infringement of RKBA

You and I might not like it in some cases but putting the bloated/unconstitutional aspects of the fed gov back into its box is the right approach to RKBA.......trying to use unconstitutional over reach and further codification of federal transgressions to cook up schemes to justify RKBA will blow up spectacularly in our faces......particularly given that it all hinges on the "opinion" of a single justice on the supreme court.

You don't like the laws of your state then pick up and move to one that better suits you.

This has multiple effects.....it starves the tyrannical dem machine of your unwilling forced contributions AND it starves the state of representation at the federal level over time.

As revenue drops the dem machine starves

As representation in congress drops for tyranical dem states like Mass and Cali and INCREASES for relatively free/prosperous states we win.

Competition for good government between states is THE solution.

Vote with your feet.

Since McDonald incorporated the 2A via the 14th Amendment, Congress could use Section 5 of the 14th Amendment as the basis for their power in legislating carry reciprocity.

But until they decide to do that and try to get this done under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, I will continue to oppose it.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Oh boy....here comes the left's "Settled Law" silliness



Ever heard of a couple of dead old guys by the names Coke and/or Blackstone....or maybe english common law?

Read up son.......

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/07/08/privileges-or-immunities/#.Uv1_M1Owe1E

Isn't it funny how 14a doesn't say anything about the issue at hand?

If you want to understand P&I I suggest you take a look at Corfield v. Coryell as a start.

There's the "Privileges AND Immunities" clause and the "Privileges OR Immunities" clause. Two very separate and distinct Constitutional doctrines. Your cite to Corfield in the same post you cite a link to the OR clause suggests you're confusing the two.

The Privileges AND Immunities clause, at issue in Corfield, is found in the body of the actual Constitution in Article IV. It's mainly used today to ensure limited rights against individual state economic protectionism or favoritism towards a particular states citizens, much in the way the doctrine of the dormant commerce clause does. It is also the foundation for the right to freely travel between states, for instance.

The Privileges OR Immunities clause was ratified as part of the 14th Amendment in 1868 after the Civil War. It's purpose, when reviewing ratification and drafting debates, was to be the vehicle to apply the Bill of Rights to the states in order to prevent states from infringing on the rights of freed slaves (for a good history lesson on this and how it specifically applies to the RKBA, see Justice Thomas' concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago). Unfortunately SCOTUS cut the balls off the Privileges or Immunities clause when it decided the Slaughterhouse Cases in the early 1870's by a majority likely mindful of the clauses intent and with a racist desire to quash it. Subsequent courts who wished to incorporate rights against the states did so, but by using the far less straightforward doctrine of substantive due process, as derived from the liberty interest.

Personally, I think Thomas was right in his McDonald concurrence, but regardless of what 14th Amendment clause serves as the basis for incorporation, if you agree at least on of them does, than to be intellectually consistent you have to admit Congress then has the right to enforce such rights under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment--which could potentially include a law mandating carry reciprocity. And in fairness, this is Dave Kopel's argument, not mine.

 

[OfficerObie59]

By the way, the historical analysis of the ratification of the Privileges or Immunities Clause link is a train wreck. All it does is cite the PandI inspiration and contemporaneous legislation. Nowhere (at least in the opening--sorry, I have a life and don't have time to read all umpteen pages) does it cite the statements John Bingham--who wrote the ****ing thing--that the very intent of the clause was to incorporate the Bill or Rights against the states.