June 5th, 2006 09:36 PM
I smile broadly as I envision handing my driver's license and carry permit to the Maryland state trooper at the next sobriety "blockade" they put up, as I pass through their fine state from north-central WV to the eastern panhandle of WV.
June 5th, 2006 10:35 PM
Is there not some federal law that says felons can not carry guns? If not, we need to push for that first, and then CCW by federal permit for anyone who isn't a felon.
June 5th, 2006 10:50 PM
I can't get behind this.
It would be a federal law overriding a states right to self govern.
States that do not have CCW laws would under this bill be forced to adopt CCW laws with the as stated constraints, which some states with CCW laws already apply in part or full.
If this were to make the CCW license of one state honored by another which also supports CCW then that would make a lot of sense.
This though is not that and would in a real way override the peoples individual right to govern their own intrastate affairs.
"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy
"A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing
June 5th, 2006 11:35 PM
I understand your reluctance to intrude into a state's right to govern affairs that are properly theirs under the U.S. Constitution...goodness only knows there is far too little respect for (true) federalism, state authority, and limited national government these days. However, I think the argument for this legislation can be made upon the basis that those states which deny their citizens the right to carry are unconstitutionally violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [in this case, those recognized in the Second Amendment]), which makes this a proper sphere for the application of national authority. At least, that is the way I can justify my support for this bill despite my ordinarily strict-constructionist view of the Constitution. I certainly do, however, understand your concern.
June 5th, 2006 11:41 PM
Could be Win/Lose
If we went to a standarized permit system, would all states assume the same "off limits" areas? I for one would not want to give up the sensible and gunfriendly Colorado laws to a "Happy Medium" arrangement, just to make all the states the same. I would rather have a wallet full of permits and know the laws of each state.
June 6th, 2006 12:08 AM
I just don't see how this can be constitutionally justified.
The attempt to put a commerce clause "jurisdictional element" in it by adding:
is no more valid in my opinion than the way feds regulate how much water your toilet can use under the same theory.
(c), a person may carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in another State if the person--
The arguements that this is a federal matter because of the 2nd Amendment don't hold because the 2nd Amendment functions solely as a LIMITATION on the federal power, not as any grant of federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the 2nd has never, ever applied to the states. In fact, none of the BoR applied to the states until the SCOTUS came up with the cockeyed notion of "incorporation" via the 14th Amendment during the 20th century.
In regard to the suggestion that it be done through forcing the states to pass the law themselves through a grant witholding mechanism, I can't see how that is constitutional unless you accept the theory that the limitations upon the federal tax power found in the tax clause of Article I actually function as a grant of a "spending power" to the federal government.
As to a "priviledges and immunities" arguement, I can't see it working except insofar as that states won't grant permits to non-residents. However, once again, the P and I clause is a limitation, not a grant of federal legislative authority. Furthermore, this bill goes far beyond merely requiring the non-res permits be granted.
I love the idea, and a twisted part of me hopes it passes simply because if we have to put up with all the federal abuse, it wouldn't hurt to have it directed in a somewhat constructive fashion. However, the end cannot justify a means which does violence to the constitution and I can't say that I can support this bill and still claim to strictly adhere to the constitution.
All the best,
Last edited by Fargo; June 6th, 2006 at 09:16 AM.
June 6th, 2006 02:07 PM
Joe, if I understand your argument correctly, I agree that the Second Amendment has never been "incorporated" by the SCOTUS. However, I would submit that the language of the Fourteenth ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....") does incorporate the Second whether the SCOTUS has recognized it or not. Otherwise, how can one say the right truly exists?
If I do have the right to bear a firearm to defend myself as an American citizen, then neither New York, Illinois, or any other state can legislate that right away...and any attempt to do so is null, void, and no law. (I realize I am not really talking the law here, which one should never confuse with justice; I'm talking political philosophy.) The Bill of Rights grants no rights, it recognizes those that already exist and pledges the national government to respect them. I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment extended that requirement to the states as well as a matter of political philosophy. Unfortunately, as a matter of law, it has not. But that does not make SCOTUS' interpretation in this matter just, or even correct.
If Congress cannot, however, act under the Fourteenth and Second Amendments to restore a right to citizens, the right doesn't exist. I'm afraid your argument keeps us in the place we are now, where each state can, on its own, decide whether what I believe to be a fundamental human right of all free persons pertains to their citizens or not--i.e., it really isn't a right, it's a privilege. With that notion, I must respectfully disagree.
June 6th, 2006 02:20 PM
The Bill would more than likly apply to states that allow CC to begin with. It would just make one CCL good in all states that currently allow.
June 6th, 2006 02:30 PM
I think as currently worded the Senate bill would actually require all states to recognize:
`(1) IN GENERAL- If another State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may carry a concealed firearm in that State under this section under the same restrictions that apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.
`(2) NO LICENSES BY STATE- Except to the extent expressly permitted by State law, if another State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may not carry a concealed firearm in that State under this section--
`(A) in a police station;
`(B) in a public detention facility;
`(C) in a courthouse;
`(D) in a public polling place;
`(E) at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body;
`(F) in a school;
`(G) at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms;
`(H) in a portion of an establishment licensed by that State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises; or
`(I) inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport.' [emphasis added]"
I'm ashamed to admit I haven't read the House bill lately, but I think this would actually create a national standard for CCW under one's current state permit, without the creation of a national license.
June 6th, 2006 03:05 PM
Firstly, let me compliment you on a well though out position. However, there is a fundamental distinction here which I believe we need to make. That distinction is between the grants of power found in the constitution, and the explicit limitations placed upon that power found in the constitution.
Originally Posted by falcon1
In regard to Congress, its powers are enumerated in Article I, Sec. 8.
Article I, Sec. 9 is a list of limitations on these powers of congress. Art. I, Sec. 10 is a list of limitations upon the states's powers.
The BoR is a list of limitations upon Federal Authority. It provides things which no branch of the federal power may abridge. However, as is evident if you read the preamble to the BoR, it was strictly a federal limitation, not a state limitation.
Either way, both the BoR and the limitations of Art I, Secs. 9-10, are self executing. They are law and are to be applied as such by the judiciary. What they are NOT, is some sort of grant of federal legislative authority to protect these things. There is no need for legislation to execute these provisions because they are already law. It is the task of the executive to execute these provisions, and of the judiciary to apply them. IT IS NOT THE TASK NOR THE PROVINCE OF THE LEGISLATURE TO TRY TO EFFECT THESE LAWS BECAUSE CONGRESS LACKS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND COMPETENCE.
I believe that we agree that Congress is limited to the enumerated powers of Art. I, Sec 8. Within these enumerated powers, there is no power to attempt to effectuate incorporation of the BoR through the 14th Am. It simply is not there.
Ultimately, what I am trying to get at is that the limitations placed upon the federal and state governments do not imply nor include any grant of federal legislative power. They are limitations upon power, not grants of more federal power. No one argues that the limitations upon state power listed in Art. I, Sec. 9 somehow grant Congress an enforcement power. Rather, they are enforced by the executive and applied by the judiciary.
As a matter of political philosophy, I agree that there is a fundamental right of self-defense which cannot be abrogated by the government. However, I am violently opposed to using this arguement to grant Congress extra-constitutional authority over the states. I am much happier leaving these things as local issues. Consider that congress passed the GCA of 1934, the NFA, GCA 1968 and various other radically unconstitutional and philosophically illicit measures. They are the last bunch of crooks I want to grant some extraconstitutional power to effectuate the execution/application of the laws.
The problem here really comes down to the federal judiciary's failure to apply the 2nd Amendment and the state judiciary's failures to apply the RTKBA provisions of their own constitutions. Giving Congress more power is a sure recipie for disaster, no matter how sweet the present plum looks.
All the best,
June 6th, 2006 06:49 PM
"The problem here really comes down to the federal judiciary's failure to apply the 2nd Amendment and the state judiciary's failures to apply the RTKBA provisions of their own constitutions."
Total agreement with the above...this is indeed the root cause of the problem.
Thanks for your well-reasoned comments as well!
June 6th, 2006 06:50 PM
I think that a CCW permit should be treated....
just like your driver's license. Other states have to honor your driver's license so why not other licenses.
I know this probably doesn't have a prayer, but hey, a little wishful thinking doesn't hurt.
The way I look at this, it would not force states that don't have CCW permits for the general public to give their citizens permits. It would just force them to recognize other states permits. The end result , would be the citizens of those states where permits are unavailable or hard to get, would then force their state to change their laws.
That way everybody would be happy & 'States Rights' are upheld.
What will end up being argued will be:
PRO- it is like a driver's license & should be recognized.
PRO- everywhere permits have been allowed, crime has gone DOWN
PRO- permit holders go thru a criminal background check & are law abiding citizens.
CON- some states don't have good enough training or background checks, some 'nut' will be running around our streets armed.
CON- we will have blood in the streets, it will be like Dodge City.
CON- since we don't allow our citizens to carry, out of state persons are SOL.
CON- a lot of states don't accept other 'licenses', like for doctors, lawyers,..etc....you have to apply in each state for a license to practice. As such your permit is no good here.
I think you get the idea. It will be fun to watch what 'reasons' the antis will use to stop it.........
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debate at 380.
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper
June 6th, 2006 07:11 PM
I have a quick question. Are driver's licenses universally recognized under the "full faith and credit" clause, or is their universal nature because the states chose to universally recognize them? Or as a third possibility I suppose it could be federally mandated as a regulation of "commerce between the several states"?
I have no idea, but this discussion has sparked my curiousity. If anyone knows, I would be interested. Otherwise I suppose I'll have to go look it up myself.:)
All the best,
June 6th, 2006 07:29 PM
With regards to the no carry states having a set of laws adapted for them as stated in the purposed bill. This includes exactly 2 states. And in a year or two I wouldn't be surprised if that number is down to 1. I think Wisconsin was something like 1 or 2 votes away from a veto override on their CCW bill.
Also if the federal government wants to ensure more freedoms I'm all for it. That's what they're there for.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
June 7th, 2006 08:04 AM
States honor other states' Drivers Licenses because of a "compact", or mutual agreement, signed by all 50 states. Obviously, some states would not sign a CCW compact, because unlike drivers licenses, there are just too many differences between each state's requirements. So, yes, if there were a CCW compact, somebody would lose out on something.
***I recently worked a MVC (motor vehicle crash) in which the driver was a Mexican national. He possessed a Mexican state's drivers license. The officer was unable to check the status of his license, because the Mexicans do not participate with our law enforcement computer networks. Funny how foreign countries can impose their licensing on us, but we can't organize amongst ourselves.
What I think would be a better option is for the USA to offer a national CCW permit. This way, you could have your state rights AND federal rights.
If certain states do not want to honor the federal Second Amendment or their own Constitution's protections, why can't the US kick them out of the union? I'd sign up for that. I bet those states would step to the like quickly before trying to go it alone in the big bad world.
Another "plus" argument for national CCW: A lawyer or doctor cannot work in one state using another state's license, however he has the opportunity to apply for the license in all states. CCW permit holders do not.
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
By jframe38 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: July 15th, 2009, 10:52 PM
By JJTGlock17 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: March 11th, 2008, 11:16 AM
By mdj59 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 07:24 PM
By Gunstogo in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: May 14th, 2007, 02:03 PM
By Old Chief in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: June 16th, 2006, 05:48 PM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors