Nation wide conceal carry license on bloomberg

A friend emailed me this, thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention if interested.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ty-backed-by-243-members-of-u-s-congress.html

Saw it on the blaze as well...

About freaking time. hope it passes this time, so we no longer have a patchwork of recirpical and non reciprical CPL laws.
:banana:

feds shouldn't dictate to states how to run their own affairs.....

Even if it is in our favor....

Wars have been fought on the same principles.

TechnoWeenie said:

feds shouldn't dictate to states how to run their own affairs.....

Even if it is in our favor....

Wars have been fought on the same principles.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the McDonald case was a mistake?

My view:

McDonald was good because it enforces the second amendment itself, and the Constitution itself applies to private citizens (Gee, who ever would have thought?). However, this national reciprocity bill forces states to change state laws to comply with a federal law that isn't actually a part of the constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I view "concealed carry permits" as being unconstitutional. However, I think that on principle, they'd be better fought on a state-by-state basis. I don't favor a federal law that forces states to change their unconstitutional laws to comply with another unconstitutional law. Yes, it would be very convenient to be able to drive to almost any state with my Washington CPL and be legal to carry, but I simply can not feel morally correct doing so when the reason I can is based upon principle I don't agree with.

.45ACPaddy said:

My view:

McDonald was good because it enforces the second amendment itself, and the Constitution itself applies to private citizens (Gee, who ever would have thought?). However, this national reciprocity bill forces states to change state laws to comply with a federal law that isn't actually a part of the constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I view "concealed carry permits" as being unconstitutional. However, I think that on principle, they'd be better fought on a state-by-state basis. I don't favor a federal law that forces states to change their unconstitutional laws to comply with another unconstitutional law. Yes, it would be very convenient to be able to drive to almost any state with my Washington CPL and be legal to carry, but I simply can not feel morally correct doing so when the reason I can is based upon principle I don't agree with.

Click to expand...

+1

I think what would be better is a SCOTUS case that made "licensing" a right illegal.

Although I agree with you and Techno on this, I don't think it would stop me from carrying in other states under that law though. I will take a right any way I can. Just don't think the Federal government should regulate it either and that this would open the door for further restrictions.

My .05

While I agree that the Feds have no right to order the states to do anything, I think it really sucks that states have the ability to undermine the Constitution that my ancestors fought for. We have the right to keep and bear arms, except in California and a couple other states. Some states are just so convoluted that it's difficult, like Oregon and some like Washington only limit the type of firearm you can own. ANY regulation, prohibition, licensing and/or restrictive laws are a violation of the heart and content of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. The whole function of the military goes against what our founding fathers wanted too. It would be very nice if I could carry loaded openly or concealed anywhere in the US without having to worry about some local, county or state law that says I can't. I am (generally) a law abiding person, peaceful and can lawfully own and carry firearms. But if I go to California to visit my mom, legally I have to make myself a victim because I'm not permitted to carry there and I can't even take my side arm because it holds more than 10 rounds. If I go to visit friends in Oregon, I have to unload it and lock it all up because local laws vary so much that simply crossing the street could put me in violation.

How does "states rights" outweigh my rights when the Constitution was written to protect the individual from government? Why should I be forced to be defenseless against criminals who won't think twice (or once) in breaking the law and arming themselves? I think this is one area where the Fed does need to step in and enforce the rights enumerated in the Constitution. There does need to be some continuity between the states for the lawful carry (openly and concealed) of firearms.

feds shouldn't dictate to states how to run their own affairs.....

Even if it is in our favor....

Wars have been fought on the same principles.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken about this law if thats what you think it does.
Each state has and does have the right to issue a CPL under whatever guidelines that the state sees fit according to this bill, just like a motor vehicle licence, however just like a motor vehicle licence all other states will be required to respect said licence even if they did not issue it. there is no changing of requirements of individual state laws just a recognition that all licences are valid no matter where you go.

another way for the feds to get their hands on our guns..... However if getting national carry meant I could carry EVERYWHERE then I would be all over it but I can see them restricting us even more.

M1Gunr said:

another way for the feds to get their hands on our guns..... .

Click to expand...

How are you coming up with that???

M1Gunr said:

another way for the feds to get their hands on our guns.....

Click to expand...

mrjam2jab said:

How are you coming up with that???

Click to expand...

It's not that far a stretch. It could well be just another method for the national government to take an even tighter hold over gun regulation. First the requirement that all States honor others licenses/permits, then telling the States what those licensing requirements will be. Of course the only legal way for them to do so would be to withhold funds from the States like they do with BAC standards, Seat Belt and Helmet requirements, and Driving age limits, to name a few.

It's the old "Nose of the camel in your tent" philosophy. First the nose and then the rest of the camel, or in my house it's the "dogs paws on the bed". First the paws while he's standing at the side of the bed and the next thing I know I'm fighting for my own corner to sleep on.

SCOTUS setting forth a definition of the meaning of the 2nd amendment, is different than the Federal Legislature decreeing the interaction required of the several states. The interstate Commerce clause is the most overused and abused section of the Constitution.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

Rights are not explained by statutes, Rights are inherent and laws acknowledge this and in this specific case are constrained from being infringed.

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Vitaeus said:

SCOTUS setting forth a definition of the meaning of the 2nd amendment, is different than the Federal Legislature decreeing the interaction required of the several states. The interstate Commerce clause is the most overused and abused section of the Constitution.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

Rights are not explained by statutes, Rights are inherent and laws acknowledge this and in this specific case are constrained from being infringed.

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Click to expand...

Yet this is one way SCOTUS has gone way off track from almost the beginning they are not supposed to define the amendments only to state whether laws conflict with them. I would love to see (but doubt it would happen) them make a ruling that licensing and outlawing carrying a firearm infringes upon the the 2A. Which doesn't define our right, it is a law restricting governments from touching our natural right to bear arms.

I think we are thinking closely along the same lines though.

sudden valley gunner said:

Yet this is one way SCOTUS has gone way off track from almost the beginning they are not supposed to define the amendments only to state whether laws conflict with them. I would love to see (but doubt it would happen) them make a ruling that licensing and outlawing carrying a firearm infringes upon the the 2A. Which doesn't define our right, it is a law restricting governments from touching our natural right to bear arms.

I think we are thinking closely along the same lines though.

Click to expand...

In the cases of Heller and McDonald, that had to be addressed to respond to the case specifics. Further, it isn't that SCOTUS defined an amendment, but that they paraphrased it in a way that provided for a response to the cases.


To address the specific of this thread, recognizing that a law is invalid, as SCOTUS did in Heller and McDonald, is not a "states rights" question, it is a citizen rights response to overarching state control. This bill IS a case of the fed attempting to wrest power from the states. The Federal Government should stick to clear legislation that only respects the rights of citizens. This doesn't fit that metric.

As to the constitutionality of the proposed bill, I would conclude that a bill enforcing Article IV of the Constitution ("Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" The Supreme Court has interpreted to include a right to travel freely throughout the country. As the court said in the 1989 case of Saenz v. Roe, that includes the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State.")

Furthermore, section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of that amendment. Not only does the history of the amendment show that it was also intended to protect a right to travel, but the Supreme Court held last year in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the 14th Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement. "Bear" clearly means "carry," though several courts are currently considering how far that right goes.

In my opinion, the Congress not only has the right, but indeed it is their duty to protect our rights and those that infringe upon them. In this case many states infringe upon our right to bear arms. Remember, the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated right and therefore the 9th and 10th Amendments are put at bay and the state's have no right restricting the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

gogodawgs said:

As to the constitutionality of the proposed bill, I would conclude that a bill enforcing Article IV of the Constitution ("Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" The Supreme Court has interpreted to include a right to travel freely throughout the country. As the court said in the 1989 case of Saenz v. Roe, that includes the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State.")

Furthermore, section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of that amendment. Not only does the history of the amendment show that it was also intended to protect a right to travel, but the Supreme Court held last year in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the 14th Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement. "Bear" clearly means "carry," though several courts are currently considering how far that right goes.

In my opinion, the Congress not only has the right, but indeed it is their duty to protect our rights and those that infringe upon them. In this case many states infringe upon our right to bear arms. Remember, the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated right and therefore the 9th and 10th Amendments are put at bay and the state's have no right restricting the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

Click to expand...

Concealment has not historically been part of the 2A. According to history, AND the recent DC v Heller decision, a law governing cc on a nationwide level isn't a protection of individual Rights. The proper avenue to address this specific is in the court system of the states to the districts, to the SCOTUS if necessary, NOT by creating new federal legislation.


Our mindset should be to support the deletion of legislation, not supporting more legislation.

wrightme said:

Concealment has not historically been part of the 2A. According to history, AND the recent DC v Heller decision, a law governing cc on a nationwide level isn't a protection of individual Rights. The proper avenue to address this specific is in the court system of the states to the districts, to the SCOTUS if necessary, NOT by creating new federal legislation.  Our mindset should be to support the deletion of legislation, not supporting more legislation.

Click to expand...

Concealment is historically part of the 2A as well as open carry. Are you tell us that no one ever concealed a firearm before the 2A or after 1776 to 1968? Don't fall for the misinterpretation that concealment is a regulated privilege. Concealment has been part of the history of the 2A and states have illegally regulated concealment.

Furthermore, it would not be new legislation, it amends the GCA of 1968.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

Click to expand...

Also, do not fall for the myth that only the Supreme Court can determine, strike down, etc.. the constitutionality of a law. Congress is an equal partner in our Republic and in fact it is their job to prevent states from infringing upon the rights enumerated in the constitution.

gogodawgs said:

Concealment is historically part of the 2A as well as open carry. Are you tell us that no one ever concealed a firearm before the 2A or after 1776 to 1968? Don't fall for the misinterpretation that concealment is a regulated privilege. Concealment has been part of the history of the 2A and states have illegally regulated concealment.

Click to expand...

Nope, I am saying that historically, concealment has been viewed as the action of criminals, and not the action of the common citizenry. And, historically, it has been legislated as such. The constitutions and laws from early on for the states also reflects this historical perspective.

gogodawgs said:

Furthermore, it would not be new legislation, it amends the GCA of 1968.



Also, do not fall for the myth that only the Supreme Court can determine, strike down, etc.. the constitutionality of a law. Congress is an equal partner in our Republic and in fact it is their job to prevent states from infringing upon the rights enumerated in the constitution.

Click to expand...

Do you feel that I have somehow "fallen for some myth?" Further, how do you feel this new legislation will somehow "prevent states from infringing upon the rights enumerated in the constitution?" To that end, they should simply pass legislation negating teh cc permit process in each state, and negating any limits upon the bearing of arms, concealed or open. This bill does not do a bit of that.


And, "amend existing legislation" is simply wiggle words to attempt to deny that this IS "new."

wrightme said:

Nope, I am saying that historically, concealment has been viewed as the action of criminals, and not the action of the common citizenry. And, historically, it has been legislated as such. The constitutions and laws from early on for the states also reflects this historical perspective.

Do you feel that I have somehow "fallen for some myth?" Further, how do you feel this new legislation will somehow "prevent states from infringing upon the rights enumerated in the constitution?" To that end, they should simply pass legislation negating teh cc permit process in each state, and negating any limits upon the bearing of arms, concealed or open. This bill does not do a bit of that.


And, "amend existing legislation" is simply wiggle words to attempt to deny that this IS "new."

Click to expand...

Can you cite that the "constitution and laws form early on" (for the states) reflects this perspective? Only post Civil War and the racist gun laws that were passed. Prior to this racist outburst state constitutions, state laws, etc were silent on method of carry. Only a few townships in the old 'wild' west outlawed concealed carry.

Would you rather have this amendment of Title 18 done now or would you rather wait 20 years for a purist view that all gun laws are struck down?

wrightme said:

In the cases of Heller and McDonald, that had to be addressed to respond to the case specifics. Further, it isn't that SCOTUS defined an amendment, but that they paraphrased it in a way that provided for a response to the cases.


To address the specific of this thread, recognizing that a law is invalid, as SCOTUS did in Heller and McDonald, is not a "states rights" question, it is a citizen rights response to overarching state control. This bill IS a case of the fed attempting to wrest power from the states. The Federal Government should stick to clear legislation that only respects the rights of citizens. This doesn't fit that metric.

Click to expand...

I think we are on the same page just expressing it differntly.

gogodawgs said:

As to the constitutionality of the proposed bill, I would conclude that a bill enforcing Article IV of the Constitution ("Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" The Supreme Court has interpreted to include a right to travel freely throughout the country. As the court said in the 1989 case of Saenz v. Roe, that includes the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State.")

Furthermore, section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of that amendment. Not only does the history of the amendment show that it was also intended to protect a right to travel, but the Supreme Court held last year in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the 14th Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement. "Bear" clearly means "carry," though several courts are currently considering how far that right goes.

In my opinion, the Congress not only has the right, but indeed it is their duty to protect our rights and those that infringe upon them. In this case many states infringe upon our right to bear arms. Remember, the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated right and therefore the 9th and 10th Amendments are put at bay and the state's have no right restricting the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

Click to expand...

I will take a "right" anyway I can get it, and agree with you it's part of congress's job to insure the governments aren't infringing on our rights. What I fear is this would open the door for "interpretation" by the courts and congress for more regulation. Government has a history of gaining power and using every rational possible for justification of their increasing "regulation". You know me I am a "constitutional" guy and don't believe in more laws. Yet this one is a proper law so far in that it restricts government not the people, the original intent of federal laws.

The other hand this bill may force SCOTUS to decide on the very issue we are talking about here. The natural right to bear arms. Just a thought.