The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/232633-senate-republican-unveils-gun-rights-bill

Gun owners would be allowed to carry concealed weapons around the country under new legislation introduced in the Senate.

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would allow gun owners who have a concealed carry permit in their home state to bring their firearms in any other state with concealed-carry laws.

"This operates more or less like a driver’s license,” Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the second-ranking Republican in the upper chamber, told The Hill. "So, for example, if you have a driver’s license in Texas, you can drive in New York, in Utah and other places, subject to the laws of those states."

Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said this would “eliminate some of the ‘gotcha moments,’ where people inadvertently cross state lines” with guns they are legally allowed to carry in their home state.

Click to expand...

I'm much happier with the Interstate Compact regarding drivers licenses than I would be with a federal law regulating drivers licenses. The same with firearm carry recognition. (If Congress gets the concealed carry nose under the tent flap maybe we can get open carry added later - the mating cry of the incrementalists.)

But much more importantly, with an interstate compact individual states could withdraw without effecting the operation of the compact in the remaining signatory states. With a federal law Congress can take it away - just as easily as they gave it - and it will effect all of the states.

I'm not sure why the NRA is supporting the bill but I'll bet it has something to do with incrementalism without considering the most probable unintended consequences.

stay safe.

The feds should be enforcing the existing law that trumps all others regarding The Second Amendment! Period

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.

All SCOTUS judicial review overturned and the Constitution restored. Period.

True that is Skid - what they giveth, that can take away. We don't need more gun law...we need less.

I'd much prefer that congress pass a law that supersedes all state laws regarding personal carried tools of self-defense with some limited exceptions.

Grapeshot said:

what they giveth, that can take away. We don't need more gun law...we need less.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Including taking away our rights already enumerated, by SCOTUS activist judges and judicial review.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Plain English, judicially reviewed into something else by SCOTUS.

The problem with this whole conversation is we already have the right to carry, Openly or Concealed. "shall not be infringed." is plain English.

Thanks SCOTUS for changing the meaning of the English language as well as the Constitution.

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

The feds should be enforcing the existing law that trumps all others regarding The Second Amendment! Period

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.

All SCOTUS judicial review overturned and the Constitution restored. Period.

Click to expand...

Yes the feds should. And I should be a lot more svelte and not be saddled with physical infirmities. (I'm still deciding if I should have one or more sexy babes hanging on to me. Once burned and all that.)

But in the meantime, an interstate compact would be safer and run less risk of being totally eliminated in one fell swoop. There's already one state that has withdrawn from the intetstate compact on drivers licenses and another that is considering doing so. (It does not mean you can't drive there on your home state license - it means you will need to post bond or pay the fine on the spot instead of being let go on a citation and the citing state relying on your home state doing the collection if you fail to show/fail to pay the fine when found guilty.)

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Yes the feds should. And I should be a lot more svelte and not be saddled with physical infirmities. (I'm still deciding if I should have one or more sexy babes hanging on to me. Once burned and all that.)

But in the meantime, an interstate compact would be safer and run less risk of being totally eliminated in one fell swoop. There's already one state that has withdrawn from the intetstate compact on drivers licenses and another that is considering doing so. (It does not mean you can't drive there on your home state license - it means you will need to post bond or pay the fine on the spot instead of being let go on a citation and the citing state relying on your home state doing the collection if you fail to show/fail to pay the fine when found guilty.)

stay safe.

Click to expand...

You can be right all you want by deflecting.

It does not change the fact that we already have the right to keep and bear arms without infringement.


SCOTUS was, and is wrong to change that. Period

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

You can be right all you want by deflecting.

It does not change the fact that we already have the right to keep and bear arms without infringement.


SCOTUS was, and is wrong to change that. Period

Click to expand...

Never said we didn't have the right. Merely said that we are saddled with multiple infringements and will continue to be for quite some time now because the feds are not going to do what you say they "should" do.

There's a wonderful argument out there that an Interstate Compact is a treaty between the several States. And we all know that treaties can trump federal law. So why are you against an interstate compact as the way and means to "put things aright"?

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Never said we didn't have the right. Merely said that we are saddled with multiple infringements and will continue to be for quite some time now because the feds are not going to do what you say they "should" do.

There's a wonderful argument out there that an Interstate Compact is a treaty between the several States. And we all know that treaties can trump federal law. So why are you against an interstate compact as the way and means to "put things aright"?

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Because:

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

It does not change the fact that we already have the right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

SCOTUS was, and is wrong to change that. Period

Click to expand...

In order to cure cancer, it must be eradicated.

SCOTUS needs to stop changing the Constitution by judicial review and with activist judges.

Grapeshot said:

True that is Skid - what they giveth, that can take away. We don't need more gun law...we need less.

I'd much prefer that congress pass a law that supersedes all state laws regarding personal carried tools of self-defense with some limited exceptions.

Click to expand...

Congress is fully within its powers of the 14th amendment to protect citizens of the US against State and local infringement of their RKBA. The best way to do that would be to pass a federal law criminalizing any attempt to infringe RKBA and the AG bringing charges against any local cop or prosecutor who attempted to enforce any law that infringed our RKBA.

Refusing to pass along highway funding to any State that didn't repeal anti-RKBA laws during their next available legislative session would be a fun touch.

But until we can get that, I'll take a nationwide requirement to recognize my permit over nothing.

The problem with the InterState compact idea is that States are free to continue completely abridging my RKBA. Thirty-plus States already voluntarily recognize my Utah permit to carry. Several others will allow me to OC or even CC without a permit. But it would sure be nice to be able to travel to California or NY, NJ, or DC without being either disarmed or made a felon for crossing the State line.

Congress has power to force States to recognize permit free constitutional carry. And it should.

But congress also has power to force States to recognize permits from out of State as some recognition of RKBA. It ain't perfect. And it won't pass anyway. But I'd take it if I could and then work to get congress to pass nationwide permit-free carry.

I think the history on State level incrementalism is pretty good for RKBA and several other major issues.

Charles

I'm all for this. Yeah, yeah, the 2A is our national permit, but it hasn't been very effective in keeping us out of jail the recent century. This law creates immersion in left wing States like California, New Jersey, and New York. When concealed carry culture spreads, the licensing requirements shrink. Just look at Nevada! We went from may issue to shall issue to shall issue while qualifying for any pistol and/or revolver to qualifying with any pistol or revolver for universal carry... And it was a democratically controlled legislature! Little laws rule the land, and it takes baby steps to reach the ultimate goal.

rickyray9 said:

I'm all for this. Yeah, yeah, the 2A is our national permit, but it hasn't been very effective in keeping us out of jail the recent century. This law creates immersion in left wing States like California, New Jersey, and New York. When concealed carry culture spreads, the licensing requirements shrink. Just look at Nevada! We went from may issue to shall issue to shall issue while qualifying for any pistol and/or revolver to qualifying with any pistol or revolver for universal carry... And it was a democratically controlled legislature! Little laws rule the land, and it takes baby steps to reach the ultimate goal.

Click to expand...

I understand that line of thinking, however, We The People are the Sovereign and the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

With that, the problem is SCOTUS and the Judicial Review. SCOTUS judges need to uphold their oaths or be disbarred. Any "interpretations" abhorrent to the Constitution reversed and the Constitution restored, forthwith.

The Constitutional Oath

As noted below in Article VI, all federal officials must take an oath in support of the Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The Constitution does not provide the wording for this oath, leaving that to the determination of Congress. From 1789 until 1861, this oath was, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." During the 1860s, this oath was altered several times before Congress settled on the text used today, which is set out at 5 U. S. C. § 3331. This oath is now taken by all federal employees, other than the President:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

n December 1990, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 replaced the phrase "according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution" with "under the Constitution." The revised Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads:


"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

I don't see where it says to amend the Constitution. This needs to be stopped forthwith before the Constitution and our Rights will be safe.

Go straight to the cancer and eradicate it, nipping at the edges does not work, and won't work.

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.

Plain, simple language that has been usurped by SCOTUS

WHEREFORE, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity; let each of us, hold out to his neighbour the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of A GOOD CITIZEN, AN OPEN AND RESOLUTE FRIEND, AND A VIRTUOUS SUPPORTER OF THE RIGHTS OF MANKIND AND OF THE FREE AND INDEPENDANT STATES OF AMERICA.
COMMON SENSE by Thomas Paine

Where are we going to draw the line?

Our Constitution has been usurped by SCOTUS

Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron!

There are plenty of court cases that show the 14th amendment was a grant to erase state powers even when they went against the federal constitutions "rights".

To grant the power of the feds to do this by the 14th would erase the limited powers intended by the rest of the document and make it null and void.

A few obvious observations and not necessarily arguments.

This won't become law until the ***** nazi psychopath in the white house leaves and a neocon is selected. Then again it could be attached to some form of "must pass" legislation earlier than that.

Only a few states in their history have applied the right to bear arms to concealed carry, only the VTSC case is respected today. I disagree with this, but that is the legal tradition.

Slave states like NJ and other despotic strongholds like NYC will put as many restrictions imaginable on carry, possibly even ending their permitting system until forced to allow it like in IL and DC.

Courts will eventually strike their bans down, carry will become old news, more states will go to permitless carry. Gun rights will continue to make its trip to total victory even as freedom, privacy, and standard of living go to hell nationwide. A "bone" our rulers will allow us to gnaw on. We may go to the cattle cars armed!

skidmark said:

With a federal law Congress can take it away - just as easily as they gave it - and it will effect all of the states.

Click to expand...

You mean like that law in "the supreme Law of the Land" which states "the right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?"

That law? The one that's infringed every time any state or federal legislature passes any law regulating the purchase, storage, or transport of an arm?

since9 said:

You mean like that law in "the supreme Law of the Land" which states "the right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?"

That law? The one that's infringed every time any state or federal legislature passes any law regulating the purchase, storage, or transport of an arm?

Click to expand...

Jeeze, it must be heart-renderingly depressing to live in a world where reality is so distorted from the absolutist ideal.

I guess in your world a mentally ill person intent on causing harm to others cannot have their right to keep and bear arms restricted even when on their way to cause harm to others by using the firearm they are keeping and bearing. Or after they have finished harming others, either. It does seem your world is a bit more "sporty" than mine.

stay safe.

since9 said:

You mean like that law in "the supreme Law of the Land" which states "the right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?"

That law? The one that's infringed every time any state or federal legislature passes any law regulating the purchase, storage, or transport of an arm?

Click to expand...

Exactly. It seems some people do not want to get to the root of the problem, they just want to pussyfoot.

pussyfoot
verb pussy·foot \ˈpu̇-sē-ˌfu̇t\

: to avoid making a definite decision or stating a definite opinion because of fear, doubt, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pussyfoot

Ponder these cases...

Hertado v California, 110 US 516, The US Supreme court states very plainly.

" The State cannot diminish rights of the people""

Davis v Wechsler, 263 US 22 @ 24

" The assertion of Federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practices....

Local practices being the state... and its unconstitutional statutes, ordinances, etc...

And my favorite and the most basic of all...-- Miller v US, 230 F 486 at 489

" The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime"

It would appear that these cases have no bearing in states like NJ,NY, CA, Maryland.
Are the aforementioned states not part of the Federal Government nor do they follow the ruling's of the Supreme Court?

My .02

CCJ

skidmark said:

Jeeze, it must be heart-renderingly depressing to live in a world where reality is so distorted from the absolutist ideal.

I guess in your world a mentally ill person intent on causing harm to others cannot have their right to keep and bear arms restricted even when on their way to cause harm to others by using the firearm they are keeping and bearing. Or after they have finished harming others, either. It does seem your world is a bit more "sporty" than mine.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Yea cuz in your world those restrictions have worked so well.

skidmark said:

Jeeze, it must be heart-renderingly depressing to live in a world where reality is so distorted from the absolutist ideal.

I guess in your world a mentally ill person intent on causing harm to others cannot have their right to keep and bear arms restricted even when on their way to cause harm to others by using the firearm they are keeping and bearing. Or after they have finished harming others, either. It does seem your world is a bit more "sporty" than mine.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Im sure you just forgot to signify sarcasm. Im positive you make this irrelevant point in a fashon mocking the antis... yes?