House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines - Page 15

House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

This is a discussion on House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by azchevy There is no reason for me to visit california. Seriously. There's no reason for you to visit California now... but as ...

Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51112131415161718 LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 257
Like Tree81Likes

Thread: House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

  1. #211
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    There is no reason for me to visit california. Seriously.
    There's no reason for you to visit California now... but as you point out, you're nearby. Maybe a family member will end up in the hospital there, or maybe you'll have an important business reason to be there. Who knows, but unless you can predict the future, you can never be certain you won't end up having to go to any particular place.

    If you can predict the future, you and I need to have a meeting about the Lottery :)


  2. #212
    VIP Member Array Civil_Response's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    2,558
    If you can predict the future, you don't need to carry. ;)

  3. #213
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder71 View Post
    If you can predict the future, you don't need to carry. ;)
    Good point...

  4. #214
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,727
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    I would choose whether or not to support a bill based upon the content of that bill rather than on FUD of what the future might bring. Personally, I don't see how national reciprocity will come about unless it is through federal action and maybe I am being cynical. On the other hand, my state, NC as of Dec 1, will accept all other states permits. This was included in some recent legislation to extend the proverbial olive branch of national reciprocity rather than the "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours game" that is presently played.

    At the risk of showing ignorance, would someone please explain what the 2A is "unambiguously incorporated" means? It isn't a constitutional term I have heard of until this thread.
    What that means is that the right enumerated in the Bill of Rights has been recognized by the Supreme Court as restricting the state's right in the matter. Therefore, when Congress tells the states they must honor lawfully issued permits, they are not violating states rights.

    And, TXExpat, no, I don't think you fixed what I wrote.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #215
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,859
    Well of course you don't, I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. It is however more accurate than saying that this bill solidifies any Second Amendment right. It does not.

    They are indeed violating state's rights because they are very clearly stating that the basic legal matter of concealed carry for personal protection is state defined, not federally defined. Therefore, forcing each state to accept federal law that applies to state laws (most importantly to only some state laws), is the epitome of violation of state autonomy. Also, as I stated, the only rights they are officially stating as being violated are the rights of interstate travel and commerce.

    Regardless of how you dress it up, arguing that this bill is somehow pro-2A is, at best, very weak.
    Pistology and jem102 like this.

  6. #216
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,727
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Well of course you don't, I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. It is however more accurate than saying that this bill solidifies any Second Amendment right. It does not.

    They are indeed violating state's rights because they are very clearly stating that the basic legal matter of concealed carry for personal protection is state defined, not federally defined. Therefore, forcing each state to accept federal law that applies to state laws (most importantly to only some state laws), is the epitome of violation of state autonomy. Also, as I stated, the only rights they are officially stating as being violated are the rights of interstate travel and commerce.

    Regardless of how you dress it up, arguing that this bill is somehow pro-2A is, at best, very weak.
    Huh, say what?
    Civil_Response likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #217
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,859
    ‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

    (1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

    ‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.



    What part of that isn't clearly defining the state is the governing authority on concealed carry permits?

  8. #218
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    ‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

    (1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

    ‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.



    What part of that isn't clearly defining the state is the governing authority on concealed carry permits?
    That's defining the state as the governing authority on issuing concealed carry permits. That's why I like this bill, it doesn't override the right of a state to issue its permits by creating a Federal permit, or mandating any changes to state law. That's why it's a reciprocity bill, and not a "permit issuance" law.

    If it were otherwise, I would be joining the "not no but hades no" crowd here.

  9. #219
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    Like I have said before, the supreme court has made decisions on this before...

    1897 Robertson v. Baldwin: State laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment.

    2008 District of Columbia v. Heller: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues

    So the argument about the Constitution and such is moot and I can see states like CA and NY suing the feds under this premise.
    I just wanted to quote this again. We are arguing what has already been ruled upon. It may end up in the Supreme Court again when some of the states sue the federal government over this bill ( if it passes) and I am pretty confident they will not only re-affirm their original rulings but shoot this bill down and allow the States to make their own regulations as they see fit.

  10. #220
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,859
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    That's defining the state as the governing authority on issuing concealed carry permits. That's why I like this bill, it doesn't override the right of a state to issue its permits by creating a Federal permit, or mandating any changes to state law. That's why it's a reciprocity bill, and not a "permit issuance" law.

    If it were otherwise, I would be joining the "not no but hades no" crowd here.
    Yeah, except The Constitution of the United States doesn't allow Congress to enact laws that are defined by the states. Either they are acting on their 14th Amendment power, in which they would equally apply law across every state, or they are not; in which case it becomes a state matter, where they are then in violation of the 10th Amendment.

    Basically if the USSC had ruled on Miranda v. Arizona in a similar fashion they would have said something more like this:

    IF a state is going to allow for the rights set forth in the 5th and 6th Amendments, then a suspect must be informed of those rights ahead of time.

    Obviously that isn't reasonable, nor would it have been ever proposed. The Second Amendment shouldn't be treated as any more flexible than any other. Nor should we accept something simply because it sounds good. The long term legal downside to allowing this sort of legislation far outweighs the convenience that it might provide in the short term.

    And they absolutely are mandating change to state laws. That's the whole point of what they are doing. They are forcing each state that has a permit to recognize every other state's permit. That's mandating changes to a lot of state's current laws.

  11. #221
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,727
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Yeah, except The Constitution of the United States doesn't allow Congress to enact laws that are defined by the states. Either they are acting on their 14th Amendment power, in which they would equally apply law across every state, or they are not; in which case it becomes a state matter, where they are then in violation of the 10th Amendment.

    Basically if the USSC had ruled on Miranda v. Arizona in a similar fashion they would have said something more like this:

    IF a state is going to allow for the rights set forth in the 5th and 6th Amendments, then a suspect must be informed of those rights ahead of time.

    Obviously that isn't reasonable, nor would it have been ever proposed. The Second Amendment shouldn't be treated as any more flexible than any other. Nor should we accept something simply because it sounds good. The long term legal downside to allowing this sort of legislation far outweighs the convenience that it might provide in the short term.

    And they absolutely are mandating change to state laws. That's the whole point of what they are doing. They are forcing each state that has a permit to recognize every other state's permit. That's mandating changes to a lot of state's current laws.
    So? Congress forces the states to do or not do stuff all the time.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #222
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So? Congress forces the states to do or not do stuff all the time.
    Sadly, this is the very attitude that far too many people exhibit as long as it's not their rights that are being infringed. When that same Congress mandates training that you don't want, need or can not afford, I'll remind you that you were a big supporter of Congress forcing its will upon the states. And you still won't be able to carry in NY or Chicago...

  13. #223
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,905
    And you still won't be able to carry in NY or Chicago...
    And there in lies one of my complaints with the bill. It doesn't go far enough. I would be willing to accept small changes forward. Rome, as they say, wasn't built in a day and neither will ideal gun law. While it may not be the judicial opinion, I believe that the countries founding fathers intended for items in the bill of rights to apply to the citizens, and not just if the state in which they reside decides that they agree with the provisions. I also disagree with the court's rulings, or at least the vague wording, that has been used to uphold all sorts of restrictions which is also varied and random on a state-state basis.
    jem102 likes this.

  14. #224
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,727
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    And there in lies one of my complaints with the bill. It doesn't go far enough. I would be willing to accept small changes forward. Rome, as they say, wasn't built in a day and neither will ideal gun law. While it may not be the judicial opinion, I believe that the countries founding fathers intended for items in the bill of rights to apply to the citizens, and not just if the state in which they reside decides that they agree with the provisions. I also disagree with the court's rulings, or at least the vague wording, that has been used to uphold all sorts of restrictions which is also varied and random on a state-state basis.
    I believe you would be able to carry in NY because NY and even NYC do already issue licenses. Nor do I think they will stop issuing them if this passes. They may have to be brought into compliance kicking and screaming and some folks may spend some time in jail till it all gets straightened out, but NY would lose as I believe the Supremes would uphold the proposed law. (What the heck, I'm clairvoyant.)

    IL and Hawaii are the hold outs. IL will go to shall issue soon enough after some WI experience. They may try to exempt Chicago but most of IL is pretty rural and it borders issuing states: Indiana, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri. They would if this law passes quickly realize that they have lost the battle and need to get on board with some sort of permit system at a minimum.

    Hawaii is a different situation, and though they should not be treated differently from other states they really are so dang isolated that they won't need to be concerned about license holders traveling through or into their state. Once IL caves, they too probably will find reason enough to join the crowd or get sued into joining the crowd.

    It is only a very small step from the proposed law to Congress determining that
    all states must issue a permit for concealed carry or allow for constitutional carry.

    Oh, importantly, the part I put in bold is the present state of SC rulings. 2A has been incorporated and it applies to the protection of the citizen against restrictions by the state. I know it doesn't always seem that way, and things aren't as clear cut as that in the real practical world of lower court decision making, but that's better than where we were 2 years ago.
    Brass63 likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #225
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I believe you would be able to carry in NY because NY and even NYC do already issue licenses. Nor do I think they will stop issuing them if this passes. They may have to be brought into compliance kicking and screaming and some folks may spend some time in jail till it all gets straightened out, but NY would lose as I believe the Supremes would uphold the proposed law. (What the heck, I'm clairvoyant.)

    IL and Hawaii are the hold outs. IL will go to shall issue soon enough after some WI experience. They may try to exempt Chicago but most of IL is pretty rural and it borders issuing states: Indiana, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri. They would if this law passes quickly realize that they have lost the battle and need to get on board with some sort of permit system at a minimum.

    Hawaii is a different situation, and though they should not be treated differently from other states they really are so dang isolated that they won't need to be concerned about license holders traveling through or into their state. Once IL caves, they too probably will find reason enough to join the crowd or get sued into joining the crowd.

    It is only a very small step from the proposed law to Congress determining that
    all states must issue a permit for concealed carry or allow for constitutional carry.

    Oh, importantly, the part I put in bold is the present state of SC rulings. 2A has been incorporated and it applies to the protection of the citizen against restrictions by the state. I know it doesn't always seem that way, and things aren't as clear cut as that in the real practical world of lower court decision making, but that's better than where we were 2 years ago.
    Ok, I don't get it... how is Hawaii a hold out? They issue permits now... just not to anyone that isn't 'special'.

    I'm not so sure about Illinois being a 'shall issue' state anytime soon, but it appears that they'll at least go to some kind of CCW.

    I don't really care about Illinois except on principle, the principle that everyone should have access to the same rights because they're... well, rights.

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
  •  

Search tags for this page

bill allowing concealed carry across state lines

,

bodyguard 380

,
can i now carry over state lines ltc
,
carry guns through state lines
,

concealed carry

,

defensive carry

,
did the bill pass to carry guns across state lines
,
federal carry across state lines
,
feds seek to control concealed weapons
,

gun permits valid across state lines

,
house gun permit bill
,

house weighs bill to make gun permits valid across state lines

,

kimber solo carry

,
new york state hollow points gun permit
,
state vs federal government issues
Click on a term to search for related topics.