Do you think states should honor other states' concealed carry permits?

This is a discussion on Do you think states should honor other states' concealed carry permits? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by OD He may have gotten the idea from Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 84

Thread: Do you think states should honor other states' concealed carry permits?

  1. #61
    Distinguished Member Array Agave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by OD View Post
    He may have gotten the idea from Amendment II

    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.
    That would be it where it is enumerated.

    SelfDefense, I believe that self defense and the tools thereof is a right endowed by the Creator.
    The preceding post may contain sarcasm; it's just better that way. However, it is still intended with construction and with the Love of my L-rd Y'shua.

    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Tennessee Certified Instructor

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Personally, I agree with all of you that I don't *think* the 2A should have any restrictions on it whatsoever. The whole "2A is my permit to conceal carry" is a really cool idea. Unfortunately SCOTUS said that conceal carry is not protected by 2A. Doesn't have to be right. It is what is. Just like I don't like the concept of incorporation, I still have to live with it, because that is reality. SCOTUS decided that conceal carry was a reasonable restriction to 2A.

    Now to keep it on topic, I think all states should honor everyone's just like they do driver licenses. Hell, I would be even better if everyone use Vermont's approach to CC.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

  4. #63
    VIP Member Array Guns and more's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Fl
    Posts
    2,397
    So do you think states should honor other states (gay) marriage licenses?

  5. #64
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    About the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Agave View Post
    That would be it where it is enumerated.
    The Constitution does indeed enumerate a subset of our rights that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT INFRINGE.

    SelfDefense, I believe that self defense and the tools thereof is a right endowed by the Creator.
    Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.

    And, We the People create governments to protect those rights.

    The people of the United States are subject to two sovereign governments, the Federal government and the state government. The Second Amendment prevents the Federal government from infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. My state government prevents my state from infringing on that right. The two are mutually exclusive.

    The Federal government does not trump state governments in what they cannot do. The Supremecy clause, Article VI, concerns itself with the powers the Federal government has, not what they cannot do

  6. #65
    Member Array celticredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Amelia Virginia
    Posts
    383
    I would not be unhappy, had this passed, but I do have mixed feelings. We all have seen and, indeed many have made arguments that the Federal government has no right, based on the 10th amendment to tell the individual states what to do. Aren't we just asking congress to do just that by passing a national law. I just don't think we can have it both ways. Of course, the BATF has said it will ignore laws passed by the individual states saying they have no jurisdiction over firearms manufactured in those states and sold only in those states, so the Feds are already ignoring the 10th amendment.

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,985
    Quote Originally Posted by celticredneck View Post
    We all have seen and, indeed many have made arguments that the Federal government has no right, based on the 10th amendment to tell the individual states what to do. Aren't we just asking congress to do just that by passing a national law.
    Yup. For that reason, I didn't want this to pass, given that it's a violation of states' rights. I'm already recognized in nearly every state I care about. As for the rest, I simply don't go there enough to matter.

    The last thing I want is states being under the perpetual boot of Uncle Sam, under the misconceived auspices of federal authority over the states.

    If anything, these "near misses" act as signs of things to come. If states are paying attention, these are helping to show the direction people are going. I think we'll continue to see increased numbers of reciprocity agreements, as the fears of blood in the streets don't pan out in spite of the worst intentions of anti-gunners. I think we'll ultimately get to CC on campuses, without fear of expulsion or being fired. We'll get there, but it should be the states that take us there. Not big brother.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #67
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,166
    Listen to yourselves. Not too long ago all of the gun forums went berserk over the International treaty to limit movement of firearms between nations. The treaty said absolutely nothing about internal gun control. Everybody screamed that this treaty would be used to take our guns away (a sentiment not without merit BTW.) Now we have a proposed bill a giving National Standardization to our right to carry and everybody is all for it! This one does directly impact the individual citizen and any Federal Law can be changed later, once they have their foot in the door. It gives you something you want, so all of a sudden the "Monster" Federal Government is your good buddy. We can't get our state to change things , so let "Big Daddy" do it. You are talking like sheeple and liberals. Step back and take a hard look at your logic, it is terribly flawed.

    For me "NO", do not let the Feds get any kind of legal rights on our carry of weapons. This is a state issue and let it stay there. If your state is not letting you do what you want, put pressure on them or move.

    In Tennessee this is a mute issue. We set the standards for our HCP high enough that all 34 states allowing CCW recognize our permit. Tennessee can do this and other pro gun legislation because we have a RTKBA clause in our state constitution. Our right to bear arms is further guaranteed by our State Constitution. We interalized the Second Amendment in our state.

    March on the State House not the White House!
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  9. #68
    Senior Member Array Tom357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    1,068
    While I would like to see the several States recognize one another's concealed carry permits, on their own, I don't think the States should be forced to. I'm fortunate to live in the Commonwealth of Virginia, but we still have to defend our Constitution from the anti's, just as we do at the Federal level. Fortunately, our State Police and AG's office are working on reciprocity agreements with other States as quickly as they can. They've really stepped it up, too.
    - Tom
    You have the power to donate life.

  10. #69
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,166
    I think the people of each state should decide what they are going to recognize. If you , as a private citizen, feel your rights are infringed by their action, leave them and go to a state that does feel the same way you do. Again, make the changes from within the state.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  11. #70
    New Member Array poorboyinc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    1
    yes i though you could in most state anyway ?

  12. #71
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldskoolfan View Post
    Not in this case. THis is feds ramming CCW down the throats of other states. The drivers license analogy is a bad one because they do that voluntarily. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated and until it does this is the state has the right to control CCW.

    This is Unconstitutional and violates the 10th Amendment. I do believe in CCW but the states should do it voluntarily. Why not just lobby your states to enter reciprocity agreements instead? That is Constitutional while forcing them to is not.
    That would be a motivating force if ALL shall-issues recognized each other. Then NY,NJ, and CA citizens might be asking,"What the hell are we doing," or just flat out move away.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  13. #72
    Distinguished Member Array Pro2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldskoolfan View Post
    Not in this case. THis is feds ramming CCW down the throats of other states. The drivers license analogy is a bad one because they do that voluntarily. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated and until it does this is the state has the right to control CCW.

    This is Unconstitutional and violates the 10th Amendment. I do believe in CCW but the states should do it voluntarily. Why not just lobby your states to enter reciprocity agreements instead? That is Constitutional while forcing them to is not.
    I beg to differ. I'm all for states right and all, in this case I believe the 2nd Amendment comes before states rights. The federal government is actually enforcing something that the states should be following in the first place, the right to "bear arms".

    http://patriotpost.us/pdf/09-29a.pdf

    Kind of a long read, but a good article.

    Second Amendment Reciprocity?

    "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." --Alexander Hamilton

    As of this writing, Barack Hussein Obama's "fundamental transformation of the United States of America" has obligated taxpayers for an admitted $7 trillion in current and future debt for his so-called "economic recovery" act. Heaping insult upon near-fatal injury, Congress is now considering an additional $2 trillion in proposed tax increases for BO's CO2 folly, over $1 trillion for his nationalized healthcare experiment and untold trillions for another round of "economic recovery" programs. Furthermore, TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky announced this week that total Federal exposure for all TARP "spending" had been leveraged to $23.7 trillion, equal to approximately one and one half times GDP.

    All of this tax obligation comes amid the worst economic decline in decades, and is sure to test the limits of "Trickle-Up Poverty."

    Of course, none of the aforementioned Obama initiatives, or the collection and redistribution of wealth to fund them, is authorized by our Constitution (unless of course you subscribe to the so-called "Living Constitution" as amended by judicial diktat).

    Therefore, if these schemes are not authorized by our Constitution, then we have an outlaw government, and if we have an outlaw government, then by what authority does that government assess and collect taxes?

    That question will be the subject of an upcoming essay, but I raise it here in order to highlight an expenditure that our Constitution does authorize Congress to enact -- defense appropriations.

    The National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (H.R. 2647) passed the House by a vote of 389 Ayes, 22 Nays (2 Republican) and 22 Present/Not Voting. It contained 69 amendments, mostly related to defense expenditures.

    The Senate version of the NDAA (S.1390) with its 216 amendments is now being debated.

    One of those amendments, a liberal effort to expand so-called "hate crimes" legislation, resulted in heated discourse on the Senate floor, including this scolding by John McCain (R-AZ) toward Harry Reid (D-NV): "The majority leader has made it clear that their highest priority ... is a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatsoever with defending this nation. While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars, we're going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that's more important ... than legislation concerning the defense of this nation."

    Indeed, McCain has this one exactly right.

    However, I draw your attention to another amendment, this one added by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), authorizing interstate reciprocity of concealed-carry permit holders cross state lines with their weapons. Thune's amendment was stripped from the legislation even after mustering 58 votes for and 39 votes against.

    Yes, that is a strong majority in favor, but still two votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to block a promised filibuster by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). (In today's milquetoast Senate, just the threat of a filibuster is treated as an actual filibuster.)

    Deplorably, two Republican senators voted against Thune's measure: Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of neighboring Ohio.

    For the record, I am not suggesting this measure would have passed had Lugar and Voinovich changed their votes -- the Democrats were not going to let this one through. These votes always come down to who cut the best backroom wink-and-nod deals on some other piece of legislation in return for a aye or nay on this one. But I do wonder what Lugar and Voinovich got in return...

    Schumer protested, "This amendment is a bridge too far, and could endanger the safety of millions of Americans. Each state has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most all parts of America. Whether you are pro-gun or pro-gun control, this measure deserves to be defeated. We will do everything we can to stop this poisonous amendment from being enacted."

    There was a concerted effort by the Left to paint Thune's reciprocity amendment as having nothing to do with national defense -- a tit-for-tat in response to McCain's complaint about Reid's "hate crimes" amendment.

    However, I subscribe to the notion that "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." That would be directly from the Second Amendment in our Constitution's Bill of Rights.

    Sidebar: For those who don't know enough about American history to comprehend that "a well regulated Militia" refers to "the People," stop reading this essay and take Civics 101 at any accredited institution. Oh, wait, they don't teach Civics 101 any longer, which not only perpetuates but, in fact, institutionalizes ignorance of our Constitution.

    The Second Amendment's assurance of the right, nay, the responsibility to own and carry firearms, with the attendant proscription against government infringement of that right, is our most essential reassurance of self defense, national defense and defense of our Constitution from "enemies, domestic and abroad."

    Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison (our Constitution's principal author), wrote in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" (1833), "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

    On that note, let's take a closer look at Schumer's complaint in an effort to discern what the Second Amendment really provides.

    "Each state," says Schumer, "has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas."

    Schumer is asserting that the Second Amendment prohibits only federal government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms while that prohibition is not incorporated to prohibit state governments from infringing on the same right.

    So, would Schumer likewise argue that states have authority to regulate First Amendment rights of religious freedom, or freedom of speech, or of the press? Of course not.

    Ironically, the First Amendment notes, "Congress [emphasis added] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Our Founders chose their words with great deliberation.)

    Though the First Amendment is clearly a proscription on congressional legislation, not state legislation, the Second Amendment contains no such language and declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    However, the Left has errantly incorporated proscriptions of the First Amendment upon the states (while completely redefining "speech" to include even the most grotesque forms of expression but restricting political speech,) while arguing that the Second Amendment is a prohibition only upon the federal government.

    Sidebar: When an über-leftist attempts to make an argument for federalism, beware. Though the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights defines federalism -- "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." -- this does not suggest that the previous amendments apply only to the federal government.

    In order to consider whether there is a constitutional basis for Thune's reciprocity amendment in the first place, we must first discern our Founders' original intent.

    The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 after great disagreement on whether the enumeration of such rights was even required. Alexander Hamilton aptly summed up the basis for this disagreement in Federalist No. 84: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. ... For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

    Indeed, read in context, the Bill of Rights is an affirmation of innate individual rights, of Natural Rights as noted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: "[All men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Bill of Rights, then, is a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government in regard to infringement of those rights.

    Further, it is ludicrous to argue that the enumeration of those rights was a prohibition on only the federal government since, in the words of Hamilton (and echoed in the writings of many other Founders), "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

    These rights were enumerated, according to those who favored inclusion, in order to explicitly recount the rights of "the people," as noted in the Bill of Rights Preamble (yes, it has one): "The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

    In other words, our Founders argued that they enumerated both "declaratory and restrictive clauses" in order to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of [central government] powers" that would infringe on the inherent rights of the people.

    More than a century after the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Supreme Court (of Jefferson's "Despotic Branch") began incorporating the provisions in the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. This, in and of itself, implied that somehow the inalienable rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might not already extend to all people in all jurisdictions.

    The High Court construed the 14th Amendment's Section 1 as support for incorporation: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    It is notable that the 14th Amendment makes direct reference to the Bill of Rights' Fifth Amendment prohibition against depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property."

    In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court increasingly used the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause to make portions of the Bill of Rights binding upon the states. The consequence of this interpretation was and remains that the inalienable rights enumerated by our Founders are now awarded at the discretion of the judiciary, not endowed by our Creator.

    However, given the fact that our Founders' intent with the Bill of Rights was to enumerate certain declaratory and restrictive clauses to ensure the Declaration's "unalienable rights" of all men, one must conclude by extension that those rights are inalienable by any government jurisdiction, irrespective of the 14th Amendment.

    So, in regard to Sen. Thune's reciprocity amendment, I ask, "Reciprocity for what?" Are we so steeped in the errant notion that our rights are a gift from government that we no longer subscribe to the plain language of our Constitution based on the inalienable rights of man? Has the temperature been turned up so slowly over the last eight decades, so incrementally, that when we finally feel the heat, it will be too late for us to jump, like frogs, out of the pot?

    With our Constitution now in exile, I can understand why Sen. Thune would forward an amendment to provide interstate reciprocity for law-abiding concealed weapon permit holders.

    However, the Second Amendment still enumerates my right to carry.

    When senators such as Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin declare, "We're able to breathe a sigh of relief," in regard to the defeat of Thune's amendment, let me suggest that you obtain a copy of our Constitution, and be prepared to educate anyone charged with enforcing the law, just what it is that they have sworn to "Support and Defend."

    Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

    Mark Alexander
    Publisher, PatriotPost.US

  14. #73
    VIP Member Array Guns and more's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Fl
    Posts
    2,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Moga View Post

    I can't believe that more people in the community aren't enthusiastically supporting the Thune-Vitter amendment. National Reciprocity isn't about the Fed's ramrodding CCW down the throat of the states. It is the feds making sure that the states respect individual rights.
    When have the feds aver cared about states rights?
    I was on the fence because I saw this amendment as a way for the BATF to take over carry permits. "Let's standardize CCW" boom, now regulated by the feds. Next thing you know there is a "Carry Czar" unelected, and unaccountable.
    I'll take my chances with the states.

  15. #74
    PM
    PM is offline
    Senior Member Array PM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    650
    As of now:

    Do you think states should honor other states' concealed carry permits?

    Yes 94%
    No 6%

    Total: 3572 votes

  16. #75
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Of course the question has to be asked. Are people answering this as in I think states should just do it or are they answering that they believe in the national CCW that the Feds were just offering. Clarify the question and you might get different answers. I absolutely think states should. I don't think the feds should or are allowed.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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. States that accept PA concealed carry??
    By usmc0811 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 11th, 2008, 01:50 PM
  2. Concealed Carry while travelling through different states
    By MichaelJ07 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2007, 11:29 AM
  3. Any other states that honor Ohio CCL
    By bertro in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 30th, 2006, 08:58 PM
  4. About states that honor other states ccw
    By FNP-9er in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 25th, 2006, 02:47 PM
  5. Percentage of Adults With Carry Permits in "Shall Issue" States
    By Rickman in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 29th, 2004, 01:39 PM

Search tags for this page

consequences of states honoring other states concealed carry permit laws

,

do all states honor all state's gun issues

,

do other states honer concealed carry permits

,

do other states honor each other conceled gun perments

,

does george or honor tennessee concealed carry permit

,

should states honor gun laws no matter where they are passed?

,

tn carry permit other states

,

what do other states think about the gun extension

,

why do states honor concealed

,

why does other stes not honor ccw permits form another state

,

why should states honor each other's laws?

,

why some states do not honor other states conceal carry license

Click on a term to search for related topics.