National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Drawn Up for Next Congress

[noddaduma]

jpk a fully Democratic government leads to tyranny. Not everyone in government should or needs to be elected...there was a reason the Constitution called for this, explained in the Federalist papers. Otherwise, you'll get no argument from me.

The reality is that if you want to live with an unfettered 2A you'll either need to travel back to the late-18th century or revolt and form a new nation...this time hoping that the convention which forms to write its Constitution doesn't screw it up (likely the case since the Founding Fathers had more experience with forming government than any other group in history before or since).

Within the confines of reality, elect Presidents who will appoint Constitutionalist judges rather than activists. That is why this election was so critical.

The free speech case I referred to (don't specifically recall the case name) was also a 5-4 split. 50 or so years later there are no serious free speech debates. It will be the same with the 2A. Government is not meant to change quickly.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

"Incorporation" is a work of fiction and bad case law/legislating from the bench just creates more problems

Do you mean that the constitution allows states to establish official religions, impost church taxes, etc? I'm sure the Utah legislature would like to get that memo.

 

[firestorm]

Well its a good thing that the US Constitution is an outline for the establishment of a constitutional republic and not a democracy right?

And the point he is making is about your comment about "unelected bureaucrats" pointing out that lifetime appointments were meant to, in theory, keep them outside of politics of the day and leave them to rule on the words of the constitution. weather or not you believe that the constitution should protect everyone in the US (The way it is and should be) or only people who's state also protects their rights, the ruling was clear, the 2A applies to the states. Federal legislation forcing that may be the way that it has to go to stop the abuses of the commie states, same way the feds forced race and gay rights against the states.

 

[drgrant]

How long do you think it will be before another group of unelected bureaucrats come along and reverse that decision?

Stare Decis makes that unlikely. Well, unless we get a bunch of justices that don't understand that it would probably trigger the next civil war. Heller will never be flipped for the same reason Roe will never be flipped, and for the same reason that cases like Slaughterhouse will never be flipped, even liberal justices don't like pissing in the well. It makes their jobs more complicated.

"Incorporation" is a work of fiction and bad case law/legislating from the bench just creates more problems

That's cute that you think that it's fiction, but it's the law currently, whether we like it or not.

The solution is to solve this at the STATE level as we've been working to do for a couple decades (See progress on Shall Issue/Constitutional Carry over last 2 decades)

I don't disagree with you on this front. I think most federal cases going forward are going to be simplistic, but necessary; but we're not going to get earth shattering things like Heller very often. Most of the time the courts are going to punt/defer/dodge anyways, particularly at the SCOTUS level.

-Mike

 

[namedpipes]

Here's the part your missing....where in the US Constitution does it grant the fed gov the power or authority to pass any legislation on the subject at all?

It doesnt

The fed gov does not have the power or authority to do any such thing

Who said anything about the Federal government passing a law to affect the States? (Which they can and do, but is irrelevant)


2A very simply, protects the [God given | Natural | Inalienable] right to keep and bear arms.

It does not go on to say, "unless your particular state chooses to change that."

The USAG certainly does have the power to sue a State for violations of civil rights and any infringement of RKBA absolutely falls under that.

Here's one such case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

 

[namedpipes]

...
And if you're going to make a case, no matter how contrived that this is a power granted to the fed gov then where are the limitations on what it can force the states to accept?

Simply put there ARE no limits

The Federal Government derives its power from the Constitution which in turn was an agreement, or pact, if you will, among the people. Look this can't be news to you. Are you one of those sovereign nitwits from CSI Miami?

If you're going to argue the federal government has no basis for existence, then the same applies to the States. You're arguing that the very foundation of our government is invalid. If that's your position, then you need to go start your own revolution or something and change it.

Until then, in the context of our actual government, the federal government suing a state to enforce the Constitution is perfectly valid.



sent from my chimney using smoke signals

 

[Wrench75]

If you were to come to me and tell me that the fed gov could nullify state gun control laws in order to protect the civil right to keep and bear arms under a constitutional carry scheme then you MIGHT be able to make an argument for this.......

If that is all it takes then consider it legislative nullification. The law would stop states from discriminating against people and restricting their constitutional rights based solely on their state of residence.


ETA: It seems there is no MIGHT about it. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...to-congress-and-the-states-sections-9-and-10/

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2: Habeas Corpus Suspension
Text
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Explanation
Habeas corpus is a judicial device by which jailed people may require their jailer to justify their imprisonment to a court. It is a fundamental safeguard of individual liberty, and the Supreme Court has interpreted it to give federal courts review over state court convictions and to enforce federal constitutional guarantees. It is generally accepted that only Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus. President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the right during the Civil War met with strong opposition.

Notice the bold text. So the USSC ruled, as mandated by it's const. powers, and found that the fed gov has the authority to enforce "constitutional guarantees". So while passing a law forcing states to honor a license may be a grayish area, nullification laws seem to be well within their powers.

 

[namedpipes]

Nobody is saying that the fed gov doesnt have a job to do

The point is that the powers granted to the fed gov are in fact few and specific and clearly enumerated.......and gun control and forcing national reciprocity of an already unconstitutional licensing/permit scheme isnt one of the powers granted to the fed gov

If you were to come to me and tell me that the fed gov could nullify state gun control laws in order to protect the civil right to keep and bear arms under a constitutional carry scheme then you MIGHT be able to make an argument for this.......

Ah. I think I see your angle. You simply don't want the Fed to force the states to accept other states licenses for firearms.

Here's what I actually posted: Local, State or even Federal laws that violate or erode the Constitution are... unconstitutional... and SHOULD be struck down from above.

The Federal government simply DOES have the power and the DUTY to enforce the Constitution.

Deal with it like the feline hats have to deal with President Trump.

 

[namedpipes]

...
No where in the constitution is there an enumerated power that allows Congress or any other branch of government the power or authority to pass any laws regarding gun control
...

That is correct, but striking down unconstitutional law that violates our civil rights IS NOT GUN CONTROL.

Not only does it not give Congress, etc any power to pass gun control laws, IT BARS THEM from doing it. READ.

It's enforcing the law.

By your theory, bank robbers are free to ply their trade because unicorns.

 

[namedpipes]

So. splain this to me lucy

given that a "license" or permit is clearly an infringement on the exercising of a right/

Where in the constitution would congress derive the power to force all other states to accept the unconstitutional license of other states.

I dunno. I'd like to see the Fed strike down those licenses and gun control laws across the board. THAT was my argument.

However, we all know that will not happen. It then falls to the People to take back their rights. (which is WHY we have 2A)

However, we all know that will not happen, either.

In this monumentally imperfect world, I'm ok(ish) with the Fed coercing the States to reciprocate (by say, withholding federal funds for stuff). At least I'm less against it than I am with our MAAG just making up laws at her whim.

 

[firestorm]

So. splain this to me lucy

given that a "license" or permit is clearly an infringement on the exercising of a right/

Where in the constitution would congress derive the power to force all other states to accept the unconstitutional license of other states.

This also forces states to honor the fact that others are constitutional carry, and allow them to carry with no license. So your idea of working on the states themselves (Which I think we all agree with) works, and each state that goes CC now removes the need for a license while still allowing those people to carry anywhere in the US.

ETA: This nonsense didn't happen overnight, and it needs to be rolled back piece by piece. If we have to use the FED to roll back some parts of this then that's the way to do it, the other side will do their best to use the states or the fed to curtail said rights no matter what we do.

 

[42!]

I dunno. I'd like to see the Fed strike down those licenses and gun control laws across the board. THAT was my argument.

However, we all know that will not happen. It then falls to the People to take back their rights. (which is WHY we have 2A)

However, we all know that will not happen, either.

In this monumentally imperfect world, I'm ok(ish) with the Fed coercing the States to reciprocate (by say, withholding federal funds for stuff). At least I'm less against it than I am with our MAAG just making up laws at her whim.

All it takes is a specific preemption clause in the fed firearms laws. It won't stop permits but they could only require what is in the fed laws, and we're stuck with those anyway. Reciprocity would be a no-brainer since all the states would be using the same criteria anyway, so that problem solves itself. The risk of the fed law being changed for the worse would be the same as it is now.

 

[firestorm]

All it takes is a specific preemption clause in the fed firearms laws. It won't stop permits but they could only require what is in the fed laws, and we're stuck with those anyway. Reciprocity would be a no-brainer since all the states would be using the same criteria anyway, so that problem solves itself. The risk of the fed law being changed for the worse would be the same as it is now.

Thats a thing I have seen here a few times, people crowing that if we change federal law that the other side will just restrict us when they get power. That implies that they won't try to do that anyway, and that we won't be stuck with federal law if we somehow change states for the better. Anything we can do to improve our position while we have a chance to do so is good, deal with the other issues as they come up.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Anything we can do to improve our position while we have a chance to do so is good, deal with the other issues as they come up.

We are not going to take away the federal power for things like the Lautenberg amendment; the 1986 Hughes amendment, etc. So, we can either refuse to accept any gains given us by that same power or play the game to win given the rules the courts have established. I prefer the later.

Opposing federally mandated reciprocity is not going to undo a single federal gun law, or reduce the federal power in any way.

 

[42!]

We are not going to take away the federal power for things like the Lautenberg amendment; the 1986 Hughes amendment, etc. So, we can either refuse to accept any gains given us by that same power or play the game to win given the rules the courts have established. I prefer the later.

Opposing federally mandated reciprocity is not going to undo a single federal gun law, or reduce the federal power in any way.

But it doesn't increase fed power and it does decrease state power. Please explain how fed mandated reciprocity makes it any worse.

ETA: after rereading I'm not sure if you're for or against

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Please explain how fed mandated reciprocity makes it any worse.

I cannot as I do not think it does. I was actually making an argument to the contrary.

 

[42!]

I cannot as I do not think it does. I was actually making an argument to the contrary.

For some reason I read it wrong, hence the edit. So we agree, at least on this part. See miracles do happen.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So in doing so you're allowing for the unprecidented expansion of a whole new bundle of unconstitutional joy for the fed gov

I suppose then you would rather not be able to legally carry when visiting NY or NJ

Hell, I would - just on principle if reciprocity passes.

 

[firestorm]

Thats not the only way one could carry legally......it doesnt hinge upon the unprecidented unconstitutional expansion of federal legislation.

If you want to pursue it constitutionally then simply support a national constitutional carry bill

Best bet is this, and when there is no blood in the streets use it to push for national CC. Either way, the feds already do this for cops, so it's not an expansion of any kind. Plus the fact that even if we say "No, this is federal meddling and we won't allow it" It will not help us along the road to getting our rights back. Taking the high road will simply lead to us not having this as a starting point when the other side tries to attack our rights again.

It is monumentally harder to repeal laws that have been in place and not caused the sorts of huge issues the other side claims it will than to block us from having it in the first place. When there are no extra gunfights, or rapists carrying a gun somehow getting away with it because of this, or felons being let off the hook, they have a hard time using the same tired arguments to get it repealed. Negotiate from a place of power, once we have a thing, push for the next logical step (Constitutional carry). If you try for the whole thing at once, you will lose.

 

[usp45ct]

Is there any other example where the fed gov has previously been allowed to mandate one state accepts another licensing/permitting scheme let alone one that is a violation/infringement of a fundamental right?

I believe the answer is clearly no

So in doing so you're allowing for the unprecidented expansion of a whole new bundle of unconstitutional joy for the fed gov

Perhaps Gay marriage?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If you want to pursue it constitutionally then simply support a national constitutional carry bill

Mandated reciprocity could happen under the Trump dynasty with the Rs holding both houses.

Constitutional Carry, however nice, is not in the realm of realistic possibility.

I deal in the realm of what is possible. For example, Comm2A has been fighting (with some effectiveness) and expanding access to LTCs, and having more issued unrestricted, rather than trying for constitutional carry in MA. Not gonna happen in MA. Have to take things one step at a time.

 

[rickflst]

Put a financial penalty on it and have the SCOTUS re-write it to call the penalty a tax

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Fund the MG registration federally and allow more to be put into private hands.....with the eventual goal to eliminate BOTH GCA's entirely

It was not a "funding" issue but a blatant ban. What could use funding restoration is the federal "relief from disabilities" program.

 

[Wendell]

Bill could help New Yorkers bypass city’s strict gun laws

New York City has the toughest gun laws in the country — but if the proposed conceal carry legislation passes through Congress and is signed by the president, Big Apple residents can get a permit from a handful of states without even leaving home. States that allow permits by mail include Arizona, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, Utah and Virginia, according to Handgunlaw.us, a pro-gun Web site that tracks laws in all 50 states.
http://nypost.com/2017/02/23/bill-could-help-new-yorkers-bypass-citys-strict-gun-laws/

 

[Wendell]

Manhattan (NYC, NY) DA blasts bill allowing conceal carry in all 50 states

“I think that would be a mistake,” Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. said at a Manhattan Republican Party event Wednesday night. The bill, introduced Jan. 3 by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), predictably has the backing of the NRA — but faces fierce opposition from New York’s law-enforcement community. “It’s going to be like the wild, wild West. There could be a lot of shootouts, and not only with cops. If this person who comes [to New York] gets into a dispute, an argument with someone else, their first reaction might be to pull out a firearm and use it in the confrontation,” one police source said.
http://nypost.com/2017/02/23/da-blasts-bill-allowing-conceal-carry-in-all-50-states/

“It’s going to be like the wild, wild West. There could be a lot of shootouts, and not only with cops. If this person who comes [to New York] gets into a dispute, an argument with someone else, their first reaction might be to pull out a firearm and use it in the confrontation,” one police source said.

<http://nypost.com/2017/02/23/da-blasts-bill-allowing-conceal-carry-in-all-50-states/>

 

[ProGun]

^Damn idiots. Just like we see "wild west shootouts" in VT, ME, NH and everywhere else in free America.

 

[MachineHead]

I'd support this bill as our rights don't just end at our driveways, but because it would piss the Left off to no end. Screw NYC, they don't speak for the rest of the country.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Will never make it through a Democratic filibuster...

 

[Waher]

You really think the filibuster is here to stay? Harry Reid killed it for all intents and purposes. It's clear the DNC will not respect a minority party if they ever get power again. They were this close to crushing our necks under their boots by weaponizing the bureaucracy and courts the past 8 years. They won't give up.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If this passes, it is not given that people who cannot get home state permits will be able to get reciprocity in their home state with an out of state carry permit. (Michigan specifically prohibited this by AG fiat back in the days of 'permits for connected people only' in MI). We could end up with a Brookline like situatuation where natives are disarmed and visitors may carry.

The net result of any form of shall-issue carry in NYC will be a non-event. Dirtbags will still shoot each other, and peaceful people will remain so. Look at Chicago - it went from "no civilian may own a handgun not licensed since the early 80's" to "shall issue" and none of the reports of carnage from that city make any mention licensed gun carriers.