Logical argument against a Federal CC Law

Logical argument against a Federal CC Law

This is a discussion on Logical argument against a Federal CC Law within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Let me know what you think. http://yannone.blogspot.com/2006/06/...ciprocity.html Federal concealed carry reciprocity: a right-to-keep-and-bear-arms Trojan horse by Andy Barniskis There are presently in congress several pending ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Logical argument against a Federal CC Law

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,742

    Question Logical argument against a Federal CC Law

    Let me know what you think.

    http://yannone.blogspot.com/2006/06/...ciprocity.html

    Federal concealed carry reciprocity: a right-to-keep-and-bear-arms Trojan horse
    by Andy Barniskis

    There are presently in congress several pending bills that would require all states to honor concealed carry permits issued in any state of the union. At first glance it would seem that passage of such legislation would be a major triumph, expanding our right to keep and bear arms. I am convinced that, to the contrary, the consequences of involving the federal government in carry permit matters will prove counter to both our gun rights and states rights.

    Proponents of these bills maintain that the issue is simple; carry permits should be treated no differently from state drivers licenses or marriage licenses under the "full faith and credit" provision of Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The first sentence of that section reads, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." That sounds all good. But the second sentence reads, "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." To me, that sounds too much like "The federal government may butt in to dictate the proceedings of the states!"

    What I fully expect will happen, if the federal government dictates that states must accept concealed carry permits from foreign states, is that anti-gun states will raise a cry that "reasonable minimum standards" should be applied to the issuance of carry permits. As a resident of Pennsylvania, that concerns me because my state is a "shall issue" state, where all I need do is apply, have a clean record, and pay $19 for a five-year permit, which must be issued to me in less than 45 days. Will states that don't allow their own citizens to carry firearms at all regard that as a reasonable minimum standard? I doubt it, and I expect that what will be dictated by congress in the future--if not immediately--will include fingerprinting, mug shots, mandatory training, and high administrative costs. And, once the principle of federally dictated standards is established, increasingly restrictive standards could become a backdoor way for carry permits to be de facto prohibited by federal regulation, without congressional action.

    Those who argue that the application of full national faith and credit to drivers licenses is a good analogy for what they seek for carry permits, may be raising a better example than they realize. Here in Pennsylvania, over the years we have had photo drivers licenses, auto emissions inspections, and "motor voter" registration forced upon us by the federal government, all over the futile resistance of our legislature. In the case of emission inspections, not only were emission standards dictated, but also the levels of fines for noncompliance. The experience of many other states has been similar, so why would anyone not expect federal involvement in carry permits to result in federal micromanagement of issuing standards?

    Firearms permit reciprocity in foreign states is something we should regard as desirable, but never something we should trade away fundamental rights to obtain, nor should we place fundamental rights at risk. While I respect those who desire it, what they seek benefits a minority of a minority--those who have a carry permit at home, and also wish to carry in a foreign state. But, if obtaining reciprocity results in increased restrictions in our home states, that affects every single citizen. We will be better off continuing to fight reciprocity issues at home, on a state-by-state basis, never forgetting that licensing a right converts that right to a privilege. Ultimately, we should not lose sight of our ideal, that armed self defense is a genuine constitutional right, and genuine rights should not be subject to the prior constraint of licensing.

    Andy Barniskis is Legislative Chairman of the Bucks County Sportsmen's Coalition in Pennsylvania.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD


  2. #2
    Member Array merlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    37
    This is a good article, CK. I think everyone knows what the final outcome will be if the feds get involved...

    Those states that do not want to reciprocate with mine, then they don't need my money, either.

  3. #3
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,935
    Its a good article and one that certainley brings up some exellent questions. Personally, I believe that the Federal Government should be kept out of the loop as much as possible so that it may do what it was commisioned by the Constitution to do. It' sa fact that once you give an inch to the federal gov. you'll never see it again.

    More and more states are writing recriprocal carry into their laws and my own is considering writing it into the law also. If we can do this that would be great...it would allow for citizens to remain protected without any hassles. This would be the preffered way to go. It could be a law that states that ANY permit from ANY state is vaild in that state. It would simple and effective.

    On the other hand, in the antigun states where its obvious that the lives of politicians are more valued than the citizens who live there, where concealed carry will never be allowed, it would take a Federal Law for me to carry in say R.I. or Mass. or N.J.

    What no politician has ever sastifactorily answered is why my life is cheaper there than it is in my home state. They cannot, will not quarantee safe passage, yet they prevent me from being able to protect myself and my family. In this case, it would take an act of Congress for me to protect myself.

    Like I already stated, the more Congress is kept out of my business, the more I like it. Unfortunatley it may be the ONLY way that I'll ever be able to get around the Kennedy,Clinton,Lautenberg and Shumer clones that could care less if I lived or died in their city.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,742
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Like I already stated, the more Congress is kept out of my business, the more I like it. Unfortunatley it may be the ONLY way that I'll ever be able to get around the Kennedy,Clinton,Lautenberg and Shumer clones that could care less if I lived or died in their city.
    I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. The less Federal regulation, the better. But it might be the only way. Sounds like one of those no-win situations. We all know they are not capable of writing a law that simply says "States will honor others' permits". <SIGH>
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759
    Read My Signature!

    Keep the Federal Government Out of States Business follow the 10 th amendment:
    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."

  6. #6
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Good article yes - and the more I have pondered the pro's and con's of Fed controlled CCW for the Union - the less I like the idea.

    What we need more is for the currently non shall issue states to take a lesson from the majority - and also for some shall issue states to rethink their sometimes overly draconian restrictions.

    There will never be total parity but much can still be done over time to level the playing field - on a per state basis.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,742
    Quote Originally Posted by P95Carry View Post
    There will never be total parity but much can still be done over time to level the playing field - on a per state basis.
    I'm afraid of total parity.

    Washington is one of the states that says if you can own a gun, you can carry one. You just need the permit, no questions asked (except background check). It is also very light on restricted carry locations, which suits me fine.

    I don't need California to help set the standards for Washington. We already have enough of that in other areas with our current governor.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  8. #8
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    John - I should have added maybe too - that I would hope the states lagging behind, would in fact use for their models the ''best'' states - well as we see it - which is why I mention the need for some reduction in some shall issue state's harsh restrictions.

    I look at some and wonder why they are shall issue at all - when so many exceptions are mandated!

    Use FL, WA, PA for examples - as the better way for the tardy ones to go.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array palmgopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    tennessee
    Posts
    722
    well to be honest it is only a matter of time before people get tired of the anit's and kick them out of office. Just wait and watch. I am sure it is going to happen in WI next! the GOV veto'd the bill and killed it this last year but i think it was his last shot at it. I think he will be looking for a new job. =o) things are getting better in a lot of the states because people are getting tired of it and the government knows. things will happen they just take time. and i agree leave the federal government out of it.....they mess too much stuff up =o)

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array AKsrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,387
    Speaking as a FORMER NYer (born and raised ) , NY will NEVER
    sign on to any law like this. They will Fight it in the Courts.

    The Ultra Lib Democrats are poised to take over NY, and I fully expect they will make NY even worse than California in respect
    to gun rights.
    -------
    -SIG , it's What's for Dinner-

    know your rights!
    http://www.handgunlaw.us

    "If I walk in the woods, I feel much more comfortable carrying a gun. What if you meet a bear in the woods that's going to attack you? You shoot it."
    {Bernhard Goetz}

  11. #11
    Member Array gotammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    443
    Playing devils advocate: is there anything out there that suggest that the federal gov. is planning on regulating this beyond making the states accept CCW or is it all speculation?
    The min. standards may be left to the state to determine which may be worse. What are they calling min. standards, 20 shots on paper and a safety course by an approved vender to carry in a currently non-CCW states?
    Not that I agree with it but if lets you carry in those states and thats the worst it gets is it so bad.
    I beleive if the standards are left to the states it will be just as hard (impossible) to carry there as it is now.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array raevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    4,849
    I think we should be spending are efforts to pass laws in all states like Alaska's. No CC permit needed. They still issue you one if you want it so you can pack in states that recognize Alaska's permit.
    If enough states change back to recognizing that right to carry is a right not a privilege there will be no reason for the feds to get involved.

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,297
    I too am somewhat concerned. There are some pro points to be made for the short term, however, anytime the government is given more leeway to control states or individual rights issues they are going to "creep". It's happened time and again in the past with near every other issue in this country. It's a natural progression of government to control. That's why limits were imposed in the first place. I am therefore completely and wholeheartedly against any form of national carry reciprocity. The only form of national carry I accept is NO PERMIT, NO LICENSE, AND NO REGULATION needed. The federal government needs to stay limited to the tasks specifically provided for in the Constitution, nothing more and nothing less.

  14. #14
    Distinguished Member Array USPnTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,760
    Great article - definitely makes you think about the ramifications of allowing the feds the opportunity to screw up CHL laws. Anytime you try to do something federally (ie get all 50 states to agree), you never know what craziness bureaucrats will come up with.

    The other thing to think about is that if the CHL process starts being overseen by the feds it won't be long before we are at the mercy of the liberals. When Bush leaves office, I don't think we will be seeing a Republican President anytime soon. When that happens all of the progress we have made post-clinton may go the way of the do-do.

    Unfortunately, we cannot ever let our guard down. There are serious threats out there that wish to strip us of our right to bear arms.
    "Do not fear those who disagree with you; fear those that do and are too cowardly to admit it" - Napoleon

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by got ammo View Post
    Playing devils advocate: is there anything out there that suggest that the federal gov. is planning on regulating this beyond making the states accept CC or is it all speculation?
    The min. standards may be left to the state to determine which may be worse. What are they calling min. standards, 20 shots on paper and a safety course by an approved vendor to carry in a currently non-CC states?
    Not that I agree with it but if lets you carry in those states and thats the worst it gets is it so bad.
    I believe if the standards are left to the states it will be just as hard (impossible) to carry there as it is now.
    Why 20 shots on paper why not 30?

    Better make it 45 and 75% need to be in the 10 ring.

    And how about that approved vendor, he has to be certified by the AFT and have an FBI instructor monitor the training as well.

    You know we also need to have a Federal Tax Stamp on the paperwork (Homeland Security you know).

    The only gun you can use is American made by the way with a trigger pull of over 9 pounds.

    Then there is that Byrd amendment that all instructors have to go to West (By GOD) Virginia to get their certification.

    Oh and don't forget the ammo restrictions, you can only carry FMJ that is produced in West (By GOD) Virginia, using Union workers. The casings need to be made in New York by Bloomberg and Associates. The bullet has to be made from Utah copper or lead.

    21 is just not old enough to have this privilege, you have to be 36 to be the President so that is a good age to be able to carry concealed.

    One second thought maybe a Federal Laws is not the way to go what do you think??
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. FEDERAL TACTICAL BONDED 9mm. OR FEDERAL HST
    By The Fish in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 24th, 2012, 02:02 PM
  2. This is so logical!
    By UnklFungus in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2010, 12:11 PM
  3. Help me out with argument!
    By Chemistry08 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: December 5th, 2008, 02:24 PM
  4. Need help with Argument
    By PaulG in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 16th, 2006, 09:01 AM
  5. Here is the old argument?
    By scott Laird in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: September 8th, 2006, 11:02 PM