-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
National Concealed Carry
- Thread starter scottb
- Start date
As long as we're on the topic of FOPA, I want to see FOPA amended to include an "interrupted journey" provision to cover things like diverted or canceled flights, your car breaks down, you become ill or injured, or other things happen beyond your control that require you to remain in a restrictive jurisdiction longer than it takes to simply pass through. E.g. cases like Revell v. Port Authority.
Sometimes these threads take on adversarial tone so please don't confuse my argument as personal. I think I laid out my position in my previous post clearly but I'll summarize:
We have a Republican President, House, and Senate.
We have several states that do not recognize our enumerated 2nd Amendment constitutional right.
We have Supreme Court precedent that expressly recognizes that right.
We have opportunity with a favorable political alignment.
National Concealed Carry would be the actualization of our rights under the 2A.
Please note in my initial post I did not advocate a national license. Several assumed it, but it certainly wasn't what I wrote.
Finally - It wasn't that long ago that Federal law invented a definition of assault rifles and bad magazines and banned them. Well guess what - that law lapsed after the installation of a Republican President and Congress. The result: The usual suspects couldn't wait to pass their own version, with no sunset provision. Anybody think the MA assault weapons ban is going to lapse unless we fight it in Federal courts? Me neither. And that is the field this game will be played on regarding National Concealed carry.
There are two options on the table:
1. Create a new federal ID (blech)
2. Expand LEOSPA
I vote for #2. If current/retired LEO already have interstate concealed carry reciprocity than the peons do it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. No new federal program. Just a tweak to a federal statute that's already 10+ years old (originally signed into law by Bush 43).
Actually the Supreme court didn't recognize the 2A. They recognized the Right to Keep and Bear Arms but as usual they keep forgetting the shall not be infringed part.
This excerpt from supreme.justia.com
District of Columbia v. Heller
554 U.S. 570 (2008)
...
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jason m
NES Member
You can't say national carry and the 10th amendment in the same sentence, it will still come down to states rights. You can't say well they recognize my driver lic, yes they do cause all 50 states agreed to have this.
I would love to see it but I don't want my Fed overlords granting me this right, and I don't care if it comes from a Trump supreme court or not. I want the 50 states that make up the United States to agree on it.
Jason.
I would love to see it but I don't want my Fed overlords granting me this right, and I don't care if it comes from a Trump supreme court or not. I want the 50 states that make up the United States to agree on it.
Jason.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
Even that has some limits. Some farm states do, or did, give 15 year olds the ability get a license, but some states impose an age limit on recognizing an out of state license.
But you just did
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
CaseHardened
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 3,664
- Likes
- 575
Has been brought up - and PROMISED by Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nwide-concealed-carry-and-an-end-to-gun-bans/
This, THIS is what many of you just do not understand yet.
TRUMP IS NOT A POLITICIAN.
TRUMP HAS NEVER HELD OFFICE.
He owes no one anything, except US, his VOTERS.
Trump means what he says, and will DO what he says.
Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver's license, Trump said.
"If we can do that for driving -- which is a privilege, not a right -- then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege," Trump said.
Any Supreme Court that can actually READ will come to this same conclusion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nwide-concealed-carry-and-an-end-to-gun-bans/
This, THIS is what many of you just do not understand yet.
TRUMP IS NOT A POLITICIAN.
TRUMP HAS NEVER HELD OFFICE.
He owes no one anything, except US, his VOTERS.
Trump means what he says, and will DO what he says.
Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver's license, Trump said.
"If we can do that for driving -- which is a privilege, not a right -- then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege," Trump said.
Any Supreme Court that can actually READ will come to this same conclusion.
Last edited:
Jason m
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
He explained politics is about payback and access which is why he donated to both parties. I hope he remembers that concept when dealing with the NRA and its allies.
Editor
NES Member
Younger than that. I have held a license since my 14th birthday.
CaseHardened
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 3,664
- Likes
- 575
Christ, half of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN has been a Campaign Ad for Trump for months.
He owes GUN OWNERS the ELECTION.
And he knows it.
- - - Updated - - -
IT IS CLEAR AS DAY
CaseHardened
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 3,664
- Likes
- 575
The Amendments apply to EVERY STATE.
There is no way around this.
State's Rights my arse.
You can sure as hell legislatively reinforce the Second Amendment with national Constitutional Carry and not violate the tenth Amendment.
An affirmation of the Second Amendment, if you will: No license, nothing for the next president to usurp, and no interpretation necessary.
Well there are plenty of states that have already sucked the 2A away from us, what makes you think Mass or any other commie state will all of a sudden give us our rights back.?
50 state carry sounds amazing, i love it. But the main reason people want this is to be able to carry in the now restricted states, the problem is the restricted states will always remain restricted, they will fight tooth an nail.
Hell will freeze over before mass is a no LTC carry state.
Jason m
NES Member
How do you enforce a state to honor what the Feds say, outside of it 18 enumerated rights the federal government it's left up till the state's to make there own laws.
Now has that been pushed to the point of no return, hell yes. Things like abortion and gay marriage. Does that make it right, God no.
I'm just saying guns are the 3rd rail of rights, when they want to ban them everyone screens Feds do something like we saw in 94 and what they tried after Newtown.
But the left will screen states rights if you try and get the state's to agree.
I'm for the constitution, period. Even if it means I don't like it. But without a bedrock of stability we are no better than the administration that's leaving.
Sorry for any spelling mistakes, I'm on my phone and don't have my glasses on.
Jason.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 52
- Likes
- 5
This is a great point but we can pass the national conceal carry and then when a state rejects the law and goes after a gun owner operating within their perceived rights it can go to the courts. Then through the courts, a favorable court, we can address the larger issue of carrying a gun is part of 2A with the backdrop of the majority of the nation supporting 2A as recognized through this law. Let's be proactive for once rather than sitting back and defending. (Maybe this argument sounds smarter in my own head)
Your argument doesn't really address my point that we could legislate national Constitutional Carry. Of course it would be challenged and argued in the courts at the state level but that is how just about EVERY law works. Inevitably someone doesn't like what was passed and challenges it. This is no different.
Jason m
NES Member
I guess I am not seeing your point, im just trying to figure out how you get to national carry without the states agreeing on a platform like they did with they driver Lic or interstate commerce.
Most of my life and maybe yours ( I don't know how blue is ), we lived with the federal Gov. dictating what they can do and have grown used to it. Like, ruling form the bench, SSI, over reach with the TSA and home land security. Non of this is called for in the constitution but we live with it, accept and pay it no mind, we do you and I, just saying the sheep love it.
But the minute you say the "G" word, coming form a Trump court the left sates are going to start screaming sates rights and the tenth protects us from your gun rights. And you know what it does.
I want it just as much as the rest of you guys, but if it comes down to messing wit the 10th then lets find a way the states agree on a way to recognize each of the other states Lic. if they have one or not.
Jason.
CaseHardened
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 3,664
- Likes
- 575
MONEY
That's how every Liberal sick agenda is pushed.
Conservatives can play that game.
I do not understand why you are stuck on a platform or a license when none of the states who have Con Carry have done so with either. It is the very absence of a license that we are after: Legislation that enforces Heller on a national scale. The right to carry a firearm concealed outside your home without any license. THAT is national Constitutional Carry.
What you are talking about is reciprocity and that is a huge huge huge NO.
I have not lived most of my life with Homeland & TSA so I feel for you.
What you are talking about is reciprocity and that is a huge huge huge NO.
I have not lived most of my life with Homeland & TSA so I feel for you.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
The MA SMC has already ruled that the LTC is not covered by Heller/McDonald, even though it is the only way to exercise the 2A in MA. The logic used was "concealed carry is not covered by H/M, so the LTC is not protected", totally ignoring the presented argument that an LTC is needed to exercise a protected right.
Under a Clinton court, I would discourage Comm2A from attempting to enforce this in the federal court, however, under Trump, I would not hesitate to bring a case with a good plaintiff to SCOTUS.
I'm still convinced an expressed preemption clause (my post #39) is the way to go.
1. We are already in a situation were a negative change to fed law could be a problem, so no more risk than what we already have.
2. States that don't have permits can stay that way. This will not affect them so there would be no reason to oppose it.
3. States that do have permits but are not more restrictive can stay that way. This will not affect them so there is no reason for them to object.
4. States that do have permits that are more restrictive are few, so they lack the political power in DC to stop this change.
5. Once everyone is playing by the same rules there will be no reason not to reciprocate. It may take time but it will occur naturally.
6. Finally, in states that do not have a permit, to be recognized in other states, the home state would either have to create a new type of permit, or you could simply get a non-resident permit in any other state. Which you are doing now anyway but at least you'd be guaranteed that it would be issued (because all states would follow the same rules).
Coming from MA it's tough to remember that most of the country does not support the level of restriction you see in MA (and CA). If it did we would have already seen changes to fed law. And you can still fight your permit/no-permit battle on a state to state level.
I've said this before. We need to take small steps. Large sweeping changes will never get the political support necessary. Insisting that nothing short of national constitutional carry should even be attempted just means nothing positive will happen. Meanwhile the antis will take their small steps to erode our rights. There is a path that will get us there, we need to follow that path, or stay lost in the woods until we starve to death.
1. We are already in a situation were a negative change to fed law could be a problem, so no more risk than what we already have.
2. States that don't have permits can stay that way. This will not affect them so there would be no reason to oppose it.
3. States that do have permits but are not more restrictive can stay that way. This will not affect them so there is no reason for them to object.
4. States that do have permits that are more restrictive are few, so they lack the political power in DC to stop this change.
5. Once everyone is playing by the same rules there will be no reason not to reciprocate. It may take time but it will occur naturally.
6. Finally, in states that do not have a permit, to be recognized in other states, the home state would either have to create a new type of permit, or you could simply get a non-resident permit in any other state. Which you are doing now anyway but at least you'd be guaranteed that it would be issued (because all states would follow the same rules).
Coming from MA it's tough to remember that most of the country does not support the level of restriction you see in MA (and CA). If it did we would have already seen changes to fed law. And you can still fight your permit/no-permit battle on a state to state level.
I've said this before. We need to take small steps. Large sweeping changes will never get the political support necessary. Insisting that nothing short of national constitutional carry should even be attempted just means nothing positive will happen. Meanwhile the antis will take their small steps to erode our rights. There is a path that will get us there, we need to follow that path, or stay lost in the woods until we starve to death.
Well ....
From History.com:
The Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson (1908-73) on August 6, 1965, aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the 15th Amendment (1870) to the Constitution of the United States.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
Conversely, the MA LTC holder can be surprised as to the numbe of places (s)he cannot carry, even with a recognized permit, it so-called "gun friendly" states.
I doubt it. Even if Trump picks 3 pro gun justices (EG: Scalia, Ginsburg, Kennedy seats (if he's not a total douchebag he will retire before trump leaves office) the court as a generality will be loathe to pick up another RKBA case unless its exceptionally well engineered with regards to merit, etc. Heller was literally an arrow fired through a very long pipe that managed to transit the pipe without hitting the sides, and god like engineers built the arrow, the bow, and the man who fired it.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Anything but an exceptionally well engineered case will make it that far. It has to be so good that the court will be embarassed by not granting cert. Given the pending composition of congress its really time to hold these mother****ers feet to the fire. We can't have a repeat of the Bush era with GOP domination and ONE ****ING PRO GUN LAW gets passed, what a shit show. They could pound out a very simple FOPA / NICS / NFA improvement act in a day and pass that shit, all with things that even most center democrats wouldn't even find objectionable, and probably keep it revenue neutral on top of that. While I'm wishing for faries and unicorns, how about some scotus nominations involving jurists under 50 that respect the constitution and civil rights, yet don't have all the social conservative BS attached to them? The bonus here is that they might not have the baggage attached to them typically associated with hard core conservatives. The moonbats will look like retards every time they whine about his picks, which would be a gift that keeps on giving for almost a generation.
-Mike
Last edited:
