U.S.A. break out the Constitution. Time to go on the offense.

[TerriLi]

Okay, just want to get some people opinions on this. I got an idea, anyone familiar with Acticle IV Section 2 of The Constitution? If not here is the first part.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Priviledges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Now, here is my idea.
If DL have to be honored across the USA, and its not a constitutional right. Why do our Concealed Carry Licenses amount to nothing in a California/Illinois court? Im proably missing something here, but Im just throwing it out to get some people thinking really.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[press1280]

The Slaughterhouse cases in the 1870's essentially neutered the privleges and immunities clause(although the Chicago gun case is seeking incorporation of the 2A through the privleges and immunities clause). So using that's a no-go right now.
I think DLs are recognized by states out of convenience, I don't think the Feds forced states to recognize each others DLs.
Although I believe it is a constitutional right, it technically is not enforceable on the states, especially those with no RKBA amendment in their constitutions, like CA, or a very weak wording like IL, who also does not have a CC permit system at all.
Nationwide CC probably will happen after passing laws on a state-by-state basis, with all states eventually recognizing each others permits, barring a federal CC bill passing, which is not likely right now.

[SCfromNY]

I would also like to see all states honor CC permits from other states as long as you respect that state's rules. We do not want the Federal gov't. to get in volved.

If you do not tremble at the phrase "The gov't is coming to help you" ask an Indian.

[hdawson]

Preserve "states rights". Keep Washington out of it.

[Dakota97]

Personally I hope CCW stays within the states and never goes into the hands of the federal government. While the current situation is not ideal and we can only carry where our states have reciprocity, at least MOST states allow some form of licensed carry. Of course the idea of a national permit sounds good and it would be convenient, but there is danger involved!!! Once the states gave that control to the federal government, then the feds would have complete control and one stroke of a pen could take away all permits to carry. Of course a Constitutional Amendment would help, but as we all see daily, even that can come under attack. The ideal situation would be for all states to recognize one another's permits, but that is, unfortunately, highly unlikely. I don't see places like New York, (especially New York City), Illinois, California having a "change of heart" on their weapons policy.

[hdawson]

Remember, during the campaign, President Obama flatlystated that he would like to ban all state conceal carry statutes;.

[Dakota97]

Remember, during the campaign, President Obama flatlystated that he would like to ban all state conceal carry statutes;.

Yep and it would be much easier to do that if the federal government issued the permits. Keep that power in the states hands, not the federal government.

[XDFender]

The Slaughterhouse cases in the 1870's essentially neutered the privleges and immunities clause(although the Chicago gun case is seeking incorporation of the 2A through the privleges and immunities clause). So using that's a no-go right now.

Wrong privileges and immunities clause--the one discussed in the Slaughterhouse cases was the p/i clause of the 14th Amendment. This is a different issue involving states co-recognition of the p/i of other states' citizens. It is part of the original Constitution and not one of the Amendments.

I believe it is a constitutional right, it technically is not enforceable on the states, especially those with no RKBA amendment in their constitutions, like CA, or a very weak wording like IL, who also does not have a CC permit system at all.

The RKBA is not created by the constitution, but, as Justice Scalia noted in Heller predates and is not dependent on the Constitution. The 2A only protected the preexisting RKBA from infringement by the federal government.

Then the Congress and the States adopted the 14A, which established that the basic rights of all U.S. citizens are also protected relative to the states--e.g., a state may not violate your 1A right to freedom of speech or religion any more than the federal government can, because the 14A extended that constitutional protection against the states as well as the feds. The same is true with the 2A, except that in the case of the 2A, there are some very old and very poorly--and virtually universally recognized as wrongly--decided cases from just after the 14A was adopted (most notoriously the Cruikshank case) that said the 2A was not made applicable to the states via the 14A.

The problem with those cases is two-fold: First, the decisions were influenced by revisionists who opposed the 14A in the first place and preferred that the states continue to be allowed to repress the constitutional rights of citizens--particularly those with darker skin pigmentation--without federal intervention (they argued that a race war would break out if the Court decided that states could not prevent blacks from owning guns); Second, those cases are directly contrary to the multitude of subsequent cases addressing the question of whether the 14A extends the protections of the BOR vis-a-vis the states.

In other words, on this particular question, those cases are bad law and no longer reliable sources for whether the 2A extends to the states via the 14A--indeed, the majority in the Heller case explicitly called into question the continuing validity of Cruikshank in the now notorious footnote to that case. In sum, it is strongly believed by virtually all reputable constitutional scholars/experts that, once the question of whether the 2A applies to the states via the 14A is once again directly in front of SCOTUS, the Court certainly will rule that it does.

Remember, during the campaign, President Obama flatlystated that he would like to ban all state conceal carry statutes;.

Really? I've never heard that he stated that. Do you have a source for this? Who was he talking to when he said it (reporters or was it some interest group)?

It would be remarkable if any candidate for President would make such a statement--I would love to see this statement so I can quote it directly. Please let us know where it is from.

BTW--Regarding the OP's original suggestion, with regard to using Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution as an argument for all states to recognize any other state's concealed-carry license--I would like to see the argument used, because the states have said that concealed carry is a "privilege" granted by a license (wrongly, IMHO--it is a basic right encompassed by the RKBA) issued by the state. So, if it is a "privilege" of mine as a Kansan to carry concealed because of my Kansas license, then, under this constitutional clause, must not all other states recognize/respect that privilege pursuant to Art. IV(2)???

It would be a fun argument.

[hdawson]

Hope this link works. I apologise for the apparent mistake about when the statement was made. It was in 2004 when he was running for the Senate. It was on NPR. If this link doesn't work, try utube.

YouTube - Obama on concealed weapons permits

[XDFender]

Hope this link works. I apologise for the apparent mistake about when the statement was made. It was in 2004 when he was running for the Senate. It was on NPR. If this link doesn't work, try utube.

YouTube - Obama on concealed weapons permits

That's interesting. Thanks for the link. Of course, taken out of context and given the timeframe/circumstances, it is not clear that he was saying he thought there should be a federal ban on concealed carry--but it certainly is an indication of his position on the issue. There is no question that Obama is anti-gun and badly in need of education/enlightenment on gun issues. Hopefully it is slowly, but surely, happening with the pressure being applied by millions of law-abiding gun owners...

[SonofASniper]

Here is a quote from an interview during the Presidential campain:

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

Interestingly, many news sights like CNN list Obama's position as wanting to a national ban on conceal carry.

I distinctly remember watching Obama on TV stating he supported a national ban on conceal carry in the same breath as reinstating the "assault weapons" ban.

However, do you think I can find a video clip? No where. I don't like this.

On one CNN page there was a quote and a video link to the speech where he stated he was against conceal carry, but all video links from CNN were conveniently disabled.

[rottkeeper]

Look at anything that is federally run, hope you don't want our concealed carry going down that road. The way I look at it is if NY gets to a point I've had enough I can move to NH. If the feds screw us it will be all 50 states.

[DaRedneck]

All 50 state governors need to get together and hammer out a uniform set of laws (where you can and can't carry, what constitutes the right to use deadly force, etc...) then present a bill in their respective states and have it state they recognize all the other 49 states CCL (reciprocity) and have it pass. Keep the feds as far away from this as possible.

[Gun Bunny]

All 50 state governors need to get together and hammer out a uniform set of laws (where you can and can't carry, what constitutes the right to use deadly force, etc...) then present a bill in their respective states and have it state they recognize all the other 49 states CCL (reciprocity) and have it pass. Keep the feds as far away from this as possible.

That is the only thing I agree with in your statement. Sorry.

I do not want to be denied my right to carry in places that I can now(places that sell liquor, churches, places with "no carry" signs, etc.).

That is what would happen if all Governors got together and made agreements about reciprocity

A lot of States have greater restrictions that others, and most likely some States would lose a lot of freedoms in getting this passed.

[tinkerinWstuff]

I've heard someone bring this up before (same rights as citizens of the states yada yada) but it will take a court case. And then a few more court cases in the form of appeals until it makes it to the Supreme Court. Who wants to volunteer?

I also think you'd have a better chance to use that arguement and win if you tried to force states to issue out of state permits. There are states like CO which will only recognize your home state permit (you can't be from MN, get a UT permit and be legal in CO) and if they do not have a reciprocity agreement with your state, you cannot get an out of state CO permit.

So I think you'd have a better chance to use that arguement to force states to issue out of state permits, thus allowing you the same rights and protections as someone who is a resident of the state. As a CO resident myself, I have to obtain a permit and I have to meet the criteria of this state. To get a UT permit, I had to meet the requirements of UT. I don't think you'd win using your arguement to force a state to recognize another states permit who may not have the same requirements.

Otherwise, you are better off just standing on the 2A and say that you have a protected right in the Constitution of protecting yourself. The arguement gets deeper than that really because if the 2A isn't incorporated, then it's up to the state's Constitution that you live in. In CO, the right to bear arms is protected as well. Many states adopted some form of a state constitution that strongly resembled the U.S. Constitution. I wonder how many people know what is in their state constitution?