Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: US Senate Bill S.1908 - Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148

    US Senate Bill S.1908 - Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014

    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I oppose this bill. It allows the feds to start regulating the carry of firearms. That which the feds give, they can take away--or regulate. This is none of their business. If your State law restricts your carry in an unacceptable way, fix that State.

    Folks should stop pushing this idea that the feds are in charge of the States. It was designed to work the other way around.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Bad bad bad.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    What the tyrant makes with the stroke of a pen is as easily rescinded with a stroke of the pen.

    As far as I have read in Popper's 'Open Society' (~350/800 pp), he makes it clear that, in general, a constitution is merely the tyrant's rules written. I expect to see our Founding Fathers lauded for their exceptional conception of our Constitution that was intended to bind the tyrant. Unfortunately he has escaped.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    Agree!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I oppose this bill. It allows the feds to start regulating the carry of firearms. That which the feds give, they can take away--or regulate. This is none of their business. If your State law restricts your carry in an unacceptable way, fix that State.

    Folks should stop pushing this idea that the feds are in charge of the States. It was designed to work the other way around.
    I originally liked the idea of the feds passing a constitutional concealed carry, but more so to "shove it" to NY, NJ, Maryland, California, Illinois, and other states with a "may issue" policy. In retrospect, however, I have changed my mind and now agree with eye95 and others who advocate for a fix within your state. It makes much more sense.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148

    Gun rights reload in 2014, CCW reciprocity back in Congress A Texas shootout. Miller

    "2014 is lining up to be a year of gaining ground on gun rights. President Obama continues to issue his dictates. Michael R. Bloomberg is still throwing around millions of dollars. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is just keeping a finger in the dike on Capitol Hill until the midterms."

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...4-bill-senate/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Rob Portman just spammed me with an email bragging on his support for this Liberty-killing bill. This is the reply I would have sent him had the email not come from a no-reply address (indicating a rejection of any feedback):

    Mr. Portman:

    As a supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I OPPOSE this bill which turns that right into a licensed privilege that the federal government is trying to control.

    Unlicensed carry is the Right and is all I will fight for. In Ohio, that means eliminating the requirement to have a license to carry in a car, eliminating the requirement to have a license to carry into an establishment with a Class D license, and eliminating the idea of gun-free-school-zones that require, by FEDERAL law, a license to carry almost a quarter mile from a school.

    Sponsor a bill that codifies the already-should-exist prohibition of the States restricting unlicensed open carry, and I could respect you.

    As it is, based on some of your recent votes, I will not be supporting you next election. I will work hard for one of your primary opponents and will encourage other REAL gun rights activists to join me in that effort.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  8. #8
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    I'm going to open by saying that I don't think the Feds should stay out of State matters. I don't favor the Feds enacting laws which exceed their constitutional authority even when such laws would work to my benefit.

    All of that said, I like this bill and do not think it exceeds Federal constitutional authority. I think the current state of affairs violates the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution:

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
    If we had to get a driver's license for every state we wanted to drive in people would come unhinged. Under the full faith and credit clause the various states all recognize each others' driver's licenses, but you have to obey the driving laws of the state you are driving in at the time. All this proposed law does is effectuate the same state of affairs for concealed weapon permits.

    I want to say that I think the language requiring the firearm that is so-carried to have moved in interstate commerce is perverse B.S. They used that stunt to justify the renewed GFSZ act, allegedly enacting under the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Such stunts are not necessary here. People traveling to other states are inherently engaging in interstate commerce without resorting to such games as indicating the gun has to have moved in interstate commerce. If I were going to modify the bill that is the part I'd strike, just because those games are offensive to me.

    It is pretty well established at this point that there is no (federal) constitutional right to carry concealed firearms. Lots of folks disagree with that notion, but I think as a legal matter it is a closed issue and I don't think it will ever be possible to change that. I have no problem with the feds requiring the states to honor concealed weapons permits as I think the constitution requires it anyway. To me this law makes a lot more constitutional sense than the LEOSA does. At best LEOSA could be justified only under the commerce clause, and I think that justification would be somewhat weak at best as it only protected a certain very small class of citizens engaging in that commerce. Few people opposed LEOSA because it was giving special rights to cops and politicians of both major persuasions like to appear to be "pro law enforcement".

    There's tons of room to take exception to the things I've said above. I've got an open mind on it all and always look forward to the opportunity to change my position when presented with clear and compelling arguments.
    Last edited by BrianB; 01-16-2014 at 11:38 PM.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  9. #9
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    How the hell can they call it a constitutional carry bill when it is wrapped around permission slips. Hogwash, another law that makes citizens jump through hoops, and they can take it away anytime they feel like.

    But then we don't have to worry Pres Obama, and future Pres Clinton will never sign this bill.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  10. #10
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Rob Portman just spammed me with an email bragging on his support for this Liberty-killing bill. This is the reply I would have sent him had the email not come from a no-reply address (indicating a rejection of any feedback):

    Mr. Portman:

    As a supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I OPPOSE this bill which turns that right into a licensed privilege that the federal government is trying to control.

    Unlicensed carry is the Right and is all I will fight for. In Ohio, that means eliminating the requirement to have a license to carry in a car, eliminating the requirement to have a license to carry into an establishment with a Class D license, and eliminating the idea of gun-free-school-zones that require, by FEDERAL law, a license to carry almost a quarter mile from a school.

    Sponsor a bill that codifies the already-should-exist prohibition of the States restricting unlicensed open carry, and I could respect you.

    As it is, based on some of your recent votes, I will not be supporting you next election. I will work hard for one of your primary opponents and will encourage other REAL gun rights activists to join me in that effort.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Nice letter; now fill in personals and cut and paste...

    https://www.portman.senate.gov/publi...m/contact-form

  11. #11
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    How the hell can they call it a constitutional carry bill when it is wrapped around permission slips. Hogwash, another law that makes citizens jump through hoops, and they can take it away anytime they feel like.
    Perhaps just poor English and they are saying the reciprocity is the constitutional part (per the "full faith and credit" argument I put forth above).

    I agree it is highly unlikely Obummer would sign, but would he veto? Not sure. Depends on how many Senate Dems supported it I suppose.
    Last edited by BrianB; 01-16-2014 at 11:48 PM.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Mere travel, by a private citizen, is not necessarily interstate commerce.

  13. #13
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Mere travel, by a private citizen, is not necessarily interstate commerce.
    I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't since it is not relevant to my position that this legislation is constitutional pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

    I believe that same clause actually requires reciprocity even absent an act of congress, but congress may act to define the manner and effect of the reciprocity.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If the requirements vary from State to State, they would not be constitutionally required to honor the licensing of privileges from another State. For example, if one State issues driver's licenses to 15yo, but another won't. The State that doesn't doesn't have to honor the licenses of 15yo from the one that does. For a CHL, Ohio requires 12 hours of training. Alabama does not. Ohio can constitutionally refuse to honor Alabama licenses. The federal law would usurp that State authority.

    This is none of the fed's business--unless they are stepping to guarantee UC.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    The constitutionality of S.1908 is not in question. Constitutionality is determined by our lawmakers and enforcers, Gesetzgeber und Gesetzeshüter.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If the requirements vary from State to State, they would not be constitutionally required to honor the licensing of privileges from another State. For example, if one State issues driver's licenses to 15yo, but another won't. The State that doesn't doesn't have to honor the licenses of 15yo from the one that does. For a CHL, Ohio requires 12 hours of training. Alabama does not. Ohio can constitutionally refuse to honor Alabama licenses. The federal law would usurp that State authority.
    Repeating the full faith and credit clause for convenience:

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
    I do know that a state that say doesn't allow you to obtain a "learner's permit" (for driving) until age 16 will not honor a learner's permit issued to a 15 year old by a state that issues permits at that age. To my knowledge the congress has not seen fit to get involved in prescribing the manner of reciprocity of driver's licenses between the states as they have done a pretty fair job of working it out on their own. That said, if congress decided they were going to pass a driver license reciprocity law that required recognition of licenses despite such disparities it would be my guess it would be found constitutional.

    If states were presently making people into convicted felons and imprisoning them for nuances of driver's license reciprocity I would think the congress might feel compelled to intervene. Similarly if some states (e.g. California, Hawaii, New Jersey, et al) decided they categorically were not going to honor any other state's driver's license I would expect the congress would intervene.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    would you guys be as vehemently opposed to FOPA 18 usc 926A if it were enacted today? after all, it's a Federal statute and we should be so scared of it, right?!

    this is a law intended to PROTECT lawfully permitted individuals from state law charges when they cross state lines.

    i wouldn't mind carrying in Bloomberg's modern utopia (NYC) without fear of prosecution.

    this is good for the cause.

    if it passes, it's only a matter of time before "may issue" comes under fire as residents of may issue states will ask to have the same rights as out of staters visiting.

    Until the SCOTUS reaffirms the applicability of the right to carry, invalidating all laws both state and federal, this will have to do.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 01-17-2014 at 04:46 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It's a foot in the door bill. Dont fall for it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    It's a foot in the door bill. Dont fall for it.
    Agree, once the feds have control of the whole shabang, they will do what they usually do.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    would you guys be as vehemently opposed to FOPA 18 usc 926A if it were enacted today? after all, it's a Federal statute and we should be so scared of it, right?!

    this is a law intended to PROTECT lawfully permitted individuals from state law charges when they cross state lines.

    i wouldn't mind carrying in Bloomberg's modern utopia (NYC) without fear of prosecution.

    this is good for the cause.

    if it passes, it's only a matter of time before "may issue" comes under fire as residents of may issue states will ask to have the same rights as out of staters visiting.

    Until the SCOTUS reaffirms the applicability of the right to carry, invalidating all laws both state and federal, this will have to do.
    Interstate travel IS the purview of the feds. As long as you are passing through, and not staying, a law that STOPS enforcement of State laws is the LEAST the feds should do..


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

Posting Permissions

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