Yes, the federal government is getting involved. But, they have no more involvement than saying "Children, since you have failed to play nicely together, I'm going to force you to play nicely together". And they have the authority to do so under the 14th Amendment, section 1. And no, I don't think the states are the children of the federal government. They are not regulating, in the sense of saying "Here is what you need to get a CCW endorsement" or "I don't find you worthy of a CCW endorsement." It's a matter of degrees, and the second is several magnitudes more troubling than the first.
I'm not sure how it follows that it "opens the door" for future regulation. It doesn't change the number of votes required, or anything procedurally. If you're assuming that because this has to do with CC, it makes further regulation more palatable (creeping incrementalism), then I would say let's fight against that when it comes. Right now, this gives me more square miles where I can legally carry my concealed firearm, which I consider a good thing (especially for me, since I travel to CA frequently.)
As far as my interp of the 2A goes, I'm saying that it was not the intention of the framers to permit concealed bearing, nor to permit bearing arms in your hands. I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?
I'm curious about your "let the states continue to work it out" comment. Do you think that NY, NJ, MA, HI, CA, and MD have made any steps towards reciprocity with MO (or for that matter any other state) since CC was legalized? If not, when do you expect that to start? I guess I'm not quite Pollyanna enough to see this happening in my lifetime. This right here is why I think this bill is a good one.
Unlike criminal laws, there are no penalties for states that misbehave. You can't put a state in jail. And I'm sure that some states will misbehave. The path that it takes will likely be circuitous the first few times. But it will eventually be clear after a few federal cases smack states down for 14th Amendment violations.
Thanks for your rebuttal. I appreciate your civility.
Paragraph #1....I do agree, the Feds are saying they to the states, play fair. This is what they did with the drivers’ license issue too. Now look at the regulations; they now tie federal funds to force a state to follow their guidelines; i.e. setting speed limits and if you don't follow our guidelines we will withhold federal funds (Montana [I think it was them] changing some highways to an unlimited speed limit). I use it because many that are pro HB822 like to draw the correlation. You are correct they are not regulating the CCW issue, just, at this point, leveling the playing field from each state. On the surface seems fine; but once again, how far can they take the 14th amendment?
Paragraph #2....It doesn't change the number of votes or procedures; but it does provide the avenue for incrementalism. It is much less painful to provide/attach it to another bill to get it passed. A bill restricting CCW could easily attached to another bill and because of politics get passes. Example...a bill to help create jobs in the private sector that the majority of politicians on both isles would approve; a liberal gets it attached to the bill, then how does your rep vote??? And I will admit to simplifying the process but it does occur this way. So to say, I don't want to fight the incrementalism. How are you going to stay informed on this potential bill? The NRA? SAF? etc.....I don't want to completely rely on these organizations, as much as I support them to 'police' all the activities.
Paragraph #3.....As for what the interpretation of the RKBA, it is being reviewed for it's meaning. Stephen P Halbrook in his book, 'The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms' goes through the history, going through their grammar and syntax to provide an idea of what they meant. I have spoken with several local historians (as liberal as they may be) who themselves are more curious to the meaning. The idea of it meaning we could just only own guns is being challenged. The NY case will be interesting; although I don't think it will be overturned.
Paragraph #4....It was less than 20 years that only a few states reciprocated with each other. I didn't say it needed to be done within the next 6 mos. But MO didn't reciprocate until 2004/5. It takes time. And I have come to the resolution it may not happen in our lifetime. I'm sorry you have to travel to CA. I do let states know, that don't reciprocate with MO, I did not travel to their state because of their restrictions. WI was my latest one this past winter. Did it help? Not sure.
Paragraph #5....The 14th amendment is very complicated; too many try to simplify, but when in contrast with the Feds power over the states it is delicate; there are many discussions that think the 14th has been implemented further than originally thought. The states won't get hit. Generally, an individual has to go through the courts to show the states have violated the law that was in place because of the 14th. Obamacare is now testing the limits of the 14th amendment. The states are fighting because they don't want the mandates. Although, HB822 doesn't have any financial mandates for the states, is it too far?
I don't discount your arguments. In fact, I was originally in full support of it; but when does the 14th amendment stop? That is my concern. As a NRA member and fully support their activities,
I am not 100% against it, but the arguments so far, do not push me to support it. After listening to the NRA-ILRA radio show, it wasn’t encouraging. I and several other NRA supporters, without discussing it initially, came away with the sense they were implying those who opposed were not ‘with them’.
Please feel free to ‘convince’ me otherwise. I’m not closed on the matter.
Thx!