National Carry Permit

imported post

I'm putting a very long reply here. The reply is to a post made here:http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=2331&forum_id=54

TEX1N wrote: [/b]

I've heard (the states rights)argument against national reciprocity from a few people. I'm also a states' rights guy, but I also support a national reciprocity bill. Mainly because I believe the RKBA is a natural right recognized by the federal constitution. Therefore, I don't have any problem with the feds taking steps (no matter how small) to force the states to recognize that right (even if it's only part of that right).

Click to expand...

My concern on national reciprocity is three-fold

1 - My biggest concern is that I do not want the federal government to have the precedent to regulate stuff like this. The wonderful thing about federalism is that if you happen to live in a sucky state like Illinois, you can easily hop on over to another state. If we set the precedent that the Federal government can regulate the carrying of guns, it's only a matter of time before McCarthy, Kennedy, et al decide to regulate it the OTHER way. And once there'sa bad national law on carrying, it'll really suck.

I realize that just because they don't regulate it yet doesn't mean that the gun grabbers couldn't do it ANYWAY, but I think having such a sweeping requirement that all states have to allow carry by their citizens would (a) unite the non-shall-issue states together to lobby Congress to regulate carrying, which - since it was now nationalized -would effect ALL of us, not just thepoor sapswho live in states likeIllinois and (b) make it easier to justify nationalrestrictions on carrying in the future.

Summary: I don't trust the feds. Keep them as far away from my gun rights as possible. I feel as if I have no control over what they do...like they have no ears for what the people want. Unlike a state legislature, which can be convinced with grassroots efforts, the Congress is like a wild animal...best just to stay out of its way.

2 - On a more principled note, I do not believe that the power to force states to recognize carry permits can be found anywhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Carrying a gun is not interstate commerce. I think the federal safe passage law is as far as the feds should go.

We (are supposed to)live in a country of sovereign states loosely knitted together by a federal government for the limited purposes of commerce and common defense. I like it that way (or like the idea of it being that way). I'm not willing to give up on the Constitution just yet.

3 - As far as the 2nd Amendment authorizing the bearing of arms as an argument for federal intervention, as you know, The Bill of Rights does not GIVE power to the federal government to do anything. It merely states the things the federal government cannot do. So using the 2nd Amendment as a justification for government action doesn't work. To look for what the federal government is allowed to do, article I section 8 has an exaustive list and I don't see allowing the carry of weapons there (see #2 above).

Further, although states are definitely infringing on our god-given rights to RKBA, they should be sued individually, since they are infringing on the right. The Federal government is not in the equation unless they are the ones infringing on the right (As in the Heller case).

TEX1N wrote:

(A national carry law)would take a little of the power to regulate firearms from the other states and give it back to the people, where it belongs.

Click to expand...

I really don't see how taking power away from a more local government that's actually closer to the people and giving it to the distantfederal government implies that the people have more power. The states that infringe on RKBA have done so because their people want them to. I don't think "the people" have the right to regulate my right of self-defense anyway. That's why it's a right.

TEX1N wrote:

The main problem I have with your argument, against the national reciprocity because of states' rights, is that it implies a collective right to keep and bear arms, and not an individual right.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm...well, I definitely don't believe there's any such thing as"collective right" (it's a contradiction in terms), so let me try to understand how you came to that conclusion.

Are you saying that by saying states can regulate RKBA, that the right is not an individual one, but merely a right vested in certain collections of citizens who live within the borders of certain states? That's a good point!

It's not that I don't believe individuals have this right. It's that I don't think the federal constitution vests the power in the federal government to interfere with the affairs of sovereign states and tell them what rights to protect. States thatinfringe on rights should be sued individually under the state and federal constitutions.

Keep in mind that there's no federal requirement that states recognize each others' drivers licenses. They did it completely on their own. I'd like to work at this from the state level.

imported post

I dont like the idea of a permit to drive MY car on roads I payed for so I woudl never support something similair for my right to carry in my home state.

imported post

ama-gi, thanks for the reply. I understand where you are coming from, but I'm probably going to have to disagree with you for now...although this is probably one area where I could be swayed!

imported post

bobernet wrote:

It would be interesting, on another thread, to see how you think the NRA is responsible for "the situation we're in."

The NRA didn't support or pass the GCA of '68, the NRA didn't support or pass the Clinton AWB.

You need to do some research....seriously, you do....IIRC, it was Feinstein that introduced the bill and NRA DID give money to help get it passed.....see below

What the NRA *has* done, is effectively lobby both at a national level and at a local level to defeat many new gun restrictions. The NRA is largely responsible for the CCW laws now in place.

Horse shit!....again, you need to do some research....hell, just read some of the NRA's own publications....

What has JPFO accomplished? GOA? Other than NRA bashing, and pot-stirring, I'd say nothing. Without the NRA, gun owners would be viewed as "a few hunters, or gun nut wackos" by Washington, and our concerns would be marginalized and ignored.

Easy to criticize the work that the NRA has done as "compromises," but I don't see any of the criticizers making any effective positive changes.

Unless you're ready to march on Washington with your AR and start a coup, I don't see what more you would expect the NRA to be doing.

You really don't "get it" do you....it is a RIGHT...period...there should be no compromise

Despite the armchair commando fantasies of some who post on the Internet, NRA worshipers on the whole are the same roll over pansies as the rest of America. Without a large lobbying organization like the NRA, our gun "rights" would look a lot more like the UK or Australia than they do.

Click to expand...

You REALLY need to get your facts straight.........

[align=left] "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."[/align] [align=right]—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22[/align][align=right]
[/align]"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22


Originally, HB 1247 would have repealed the requirement to obtain a permit before carrying a handgun concealed in a vehicle for self-defense. But surprisingly, David Conway, lobbyist for NRA affiliated South Dakota Shooting Sports Association, opposed this pro-gun bill in committee, stating that he had a problem with repealing the permit requirement.


NRA has been giving money to Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). According to the Website that tracks all of the candidate and donor financial information available from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), (See http://www.tray.com/fecinfo/.) both Baucus and NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund - the name of the NRA political action committee) FEC reports show that the NRA on 06/26/01 gave the Baucus re-election campaign a $3,950.00 contribution.
Most of you will remember that Max Baucus built his political career on steady and sworn promises to NEVER vote for any gun control. Then, in 1994, and at the special request of his then-buddy, Bill Clinton, Baucus betrayed his longstanding promises to Montana voters and became the single swing vote on pass/fail procedural votes on both the Brady Bill and the Feinstein semi-auto and magazine ban bill.

Look here... http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=175 ...to see more about how the NRA has "protected" our RIGHTS....
You are entitled to your opinion of course but, you need to "put up or shut up"...ie, provide cites for your contentions.

The NRA should be demanding recognition of our RIGHTS instead of......
Negotiating Rights Away.....simple as that


<Rant off>


As for a national CC "law"....HELL NO... keep the feds out of our rights. I say let the states continue as they are with regards to CC and let the Fed force states to recognize our 2A RIGHT...ie, every state would have to allow OC without any "permission slip" (private property of others excepted of course).

imported post

thorsmitersaw wrote:

I dont like the idea of a permit to drive MY car on roads I payed for so I woudl never support something similair for my right to carry in my home state.

Click to expand...

You aren't the only person here who pays for roads, infact the portion of money you paid into the system for roads, probably wouldn't buy you a mile of road to drive that car of yours on... My point being, that all of us pay to use the roads, and unless you can think of a better way to regulate safety on the roads, I think the current system will do. I don't agree with it completely either but to deregulate this type of privelege would create a lot of trouble.


Secondly, if I had to come up with some type of sacrifice (had to) for a federal carry permit... that would appease both sides...

It would probably be something like Indiana's gun laws, I am pretty happy with the gun laws as they exist currently in Indiana, and if they stayed like this for another 10 years I wouldn't complain. With the one exception that domestic violence convictions and certain felonies could be reversed after a period of time and you could indeed carry legally again...

imported post

openryan wrote:

thorsmitersaw wrote:

I dont like the idea of a permit to drive MY car on roads I payed for so I woudl never support something similair for my right to carry in my home state.

Click to expand...

You aren't the only person here who pays for roads, infact the portion of money you paid into the system for roads, probably wouldn't buy you a mile of road to drive that car of yours on... My point being, that all of us pay to use the roads, and unless you can think of a better way to regulate safety on the roads, I think the current system will do. I don't agree with it completely either but to deregulate this type of privelege would create a lot of trouble.

Travel is a RIGHT, not a privilege......see attached


Secondly, if I had to come up with some type of sacrifice (had to) for a federal carry permit... that would appease both sides...

It would probably be something like Indiana's gun laws, I am pretty happy with the gun laws as they exist currently in Indiana, and if they stayed like this for another 10 years I wouldn't complain. With the one exception that domestic violence convictions and certain felonies could be reversed after a period of time and you could indeed carry legally again...

Click to expand...

imported post

Your link is broken.

I was pretaining to the privelege of driving an automobile, not travel in general.

imported post

openryan wrote:

Your link is broken.

I was pretaining to the privelege of driving an automobile, not travel in general.

Click to expand...

Driving a car is not a privilege.........


Right to Travel


[align=center]DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS [/align] [align=center]By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter) [/align] For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

imported post

just a guy, with a Glock Wrote:

That is about the dumbest ARTICLE/ argument I HAVE EVER READ. "Free men"
and other nutjobs driving on "sovereign" (counterfeit) plates have been convicted time after time. When they are not filing fraudulent liens on government officials they are planning how to steal, or otherwise imping on others rights. They sure love standing up for their "rights" as they trample other citizen's rights.

Thank GOD for the FBI's hostage rescue teams. I hope their snippers get a good breakfast ,and place their shots well in the final show down with these criminals.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're ranting about...this has nothing to do with the "Free men" or counterfeit plates.
But then, IF YOU READ IT, YOU'D KNOW THAT!.........just how are you suggesting that anyones rights are being trampled in this article? Seems to me that he is pointing out one more way that our own government is trampling OUR rights.
The article was written by a retired LEO....it cites CASE, after CASE, after CASE, providing PROOF.....what the hell more do you want?
You think that because this guy has some "conspiracy theories" about NWO etc., his article carries less weight...that his beliefs somehow invalidate the cited CASE LAW?
Do you believe that NWO/One World Government is JUST a theory?

So, you're looking forward to more "Wacos"?........YOU scare me far more than he does..........

imported post

Right now because of selective incorporation it would be un-Constitutional to have a National Carry permit, (violation of the 9th)

imported post

actually you are factually incorrect as it has been proven that more than likely Federal officers fired first at Waco, proved that they used tanks, and proven that they used a nerve agent in combination with pyrotecnics that caused the death of a number of people. You will respond to this by asking why didnt they flee, well one of them did flee in the early stages of the siege and was gunned down by sniper fire. A lookout on top of a grain silo was also gunned down by sniper fire. So really, what are you arguing for? More police state coercion designed to shred our Constitution and force compliance or ensure death?

imported post

He is a statist cop, thats all that needs to be said. His arguments rely on the assumption that only strictstate control can ensure rights and property.

imported post

I know several ATF agents that were there

I am sure you do...

imported post

just a guy, with a Glock wrote:

I know several ATF agents that were there, the Feds were fired on right off the trailer. The "lookout" in the tower had a 50 caliber.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that (a) you trust the government (b) there's something wrong with firing on agents that come to kill you (c) you actually hang out with gestappo agents and murderers. What does that make you?

imported post

So comp-tech, since you believe that driving is a "right" and not a "privelege", do you suggest the immediate deregulation of licenses and any age limits and restrictions currently imposed on the system?

imported post

just a guy, with a Glock wrote:

It was a armored personal carrier not a tank.

Click to expand...

I just finished reviewing the video.

A Bradley M2/3 was present; arguably an APC but not an M113.

The actual battering of the building was done by a modified M-60, indisputably a 'tank'.

imported post

openryan wrote:

So comp-tech, since you believe that driving is a "right" and not a "privelege", do you suggest the immediate deregulation of licenses and any age limits and restrictions currently imposed on the system?

Click to expand...

This may sound extreme, but I, too, believe that we should not have to pay fees and register every vehicle we own just to utilize public roadways. If someone has just enough money to buy a car and gas and wants to drive across the country to find a better life, he shouldn't have to get permission from the government and pay fees just to do so.

Would the action you describe solve anything? Well I dunno, but it'd probably cause a lot of problems, too. We've let this go for so long that it's become a way of life. It'd be like trying to convince everyone in a day that sex in public is fine but eating must be done in the privacy of your own home.

Picture colonial America...You're riding your horse, pulling a cart of goods down a road traveling to another area to start a business. A British soldier stops you on the road and says "you need to pay a toll before we let you pass!" This crap happened, and it's one of the reasons that Constitution of ours was written in the first place...

imported post

Perhaps, but that's not mundane to auto regulation and driver licensing. Risk and hazard is the 'why' of auto regulation.

The ignorant tyrants are as active in advancing the 'rights' of motorists over other users of the roadway as they are in advancing the 'rights' of sheeple to not be scairt.

http://www.labreform.org or read 'Effective Cycling' by John Forester (Hornblower's C. S. Forester's son). John Forester is 'Jeff Cooper' to cyclists.

I find NRA and LAB analogous to one another and delight in using one as proxy for the other to keep petty tyrants from feeling the prick of his stupidity until too late.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB!/NRA/GOP KMA$$

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Perhaps, but that's not mundane to auto regulation and driver licensing. Risk and hazard is the 'why' of auto regulation.

Click to expand...

Because an unlicensedperson may very well be inexperienced, and a car could be a very serious risk to the lives and limbs of others when used by such an unlicensed, unexperienced person? So it is necessary for the government to regulate who can use cars and where they can be used?

If you agree, then replace the word "car" with the word "gun".