GOP Lawmaker Betting on Trump to Push New Concealed Carry Law

[The Legion]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/12/07/gop-lawmaker-betting-on-trump-to-push-new-concealed-carry-law.html

The new session of Congress doesn’t begin for a few weeks, but one Republican policymaker has already drawn up a bill that would allow people to carry a concealed handgun from one state to another.

The lawmaker behind the bill, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), joined the FOX Business Network’s Stuart Varney to discuss how the proposed National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill would work.

“It would work just like a driver’s license,” he said. “If a state has concealed carry, then what it says is you recognize the concealed carry right and you have to follow their laws.”

Even though the bill couldn’t be imposed in states that don’t enforce the concealed carry law, in Rep. Hudson’s opinion, the bill has a very good chance of getting passed.

“In the last Congress that’s about to end, in 48 hours, we had over 200 co-sponsors… so I think passing the House is not going to be a problem and now more importantly… we’ve got a President who supports this freedom,” he said.

[ken56]

Maybe.............to be continued. I believe the 2nd amendment forbids the federal government from passing ANY laws regarding firearms and in spite of that it still has. Shall not be infringed means something. Why have we accepted infringement on arms but we don't accept any infringement on freedom of the press, the 1A or censorship? Recent domestic terrorists have said they were radicalized on-line, the internet, so "if it saves just 1 life, its worth it", lets censor the internet right?  What's wrong with that?  Liberals and conservatives should be able to come together on that issue and put common sense restrictions on the internet right? Common sense internet control we can call it. Who could oppose that?

Any movement on the issue of 2A rights and furthering the ability of the law abiding to exercise their 2A rights is a welcome step forward, but it is still an infringement on the federal level if it needs to pass a federal carry law. What we do about states rights to regulate arms  within its own borders is a whole other issue.

[DaveTN]

Unless the Federal government is paying for law enforcement in a state; they don’t have jack to say about who carries a gun in public. There may be some states that go along with it; but there will be others that will not comply.

The only way the Feds get to make the rules is if the SCOTUS rules that all citizens have a right to strap on a gun and walk down the street in any state they are in. That won’t happen.

Do the Feds violate states’ rights? Of course they do. Will they get away with it with carrying guns? I doubt it.

[Jamie Jackson]

While I believe that I should be able to carry anywhere, anytime, I don't believe this should be a matter of Federal Regulation...just make sure our Constitutionally Protected Rights remain intact and stay out of my personal business. And while we're at it, quit taking so much of my money and wasting it.

But I honestly think the Law of Unintended Consequences is very strong with this type of a move. I just don't see this going the way some "gun rights" groups are painting it...

 

[Oh Shoot]

48 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Unless the Federal government is paying for law enforcement in a state; they don’t have jack to say about who carries a gun in public. There may be some states that go along with it; but there will be others that will not comply.

The only way the Feds get to make the rules is if the SCOTUS rules that all citizens have a right to strap on a gun and walk down the street in any state they are in. That won’t happen.

Do the Feds violate states’ rights? Of course they do. Will they get away with it with carrying guns? I doubt it.

At least 10 states would appeal such a law, and I can't see SCOTUS allowing it myself, even with Trump's replacement for Scalia.

Transportation is a necessity and in the public interest of all states and the federal government, and hence a driver's license is "universal", but they're just not going to see carrying a heater as synonymous. There are lots of state licenses that are not accepted in all other states, whether it's the practice of law, medicine, or hairdressing.

I agree with Dave: unless SCOTUS incorporates the right to carry a heater same as owning one as in McDonald, and negating the need for a permit in the first place, can't see it standing if passed.

Perhaps they should go for a federal carry permit, good in all states, might have a better chance. But I'd certainly be against that too.

- OS

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[Just2Honor]

Universal driver's license probably falls under the so-called "commerce clause" that the Feds use so often.  I doubt it will be used for carrying a gun.

[300winmag]

LEOSA that allows local and state police to carry off duty in all 50 states is a federal law and hasn't been challenged federally in court yet on constitutional grounds so I would say federal carry reciprocity would be treated the same. 

[JayC]

20 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

At least 10 states would appeal such a law, and I can't see SCOTUS allowing it myself, even with Trump's replacement for Scalia.

Transportation is a necessity and in the public interest of all states and the federal government, and hence a driver's license is "universal", but they're just not going to see carrying a heater as synonymous. There are lots of state licenses that are not accepted in all other states, whether it's the practice of law, medicine, or hairdressing.

I agree with Dave: unless SCOTUS incorporates the right to carry a heater same as owning one as in McDonald, and negating the need for a permit in the first place, can't see it standing if passed.

Perhaps they should go for a federal carry permit, good in all states, might have a better chance. But I'd certainly be against that too.

- OS

They may fight it, but there were court cases over other similar nation wide licensing laws, and in all cases SCOTUS deferred to the Federal law.  

I'm not a huge fan of a national carry law, but it's almost certainly to be ruled constitutional by SCOTUS.

Edited December 9, 2016 by JayC

[Cruel Hand Luke]

If the federal govt can say we CAN....... then they can say we can't. Would i like to be able to travel to some "occupied" states and see historically significant stuff like in Boston and Washington DC and still carry a gun? Absolutely. But moving CCW which is a state issue under the purview of the federal govt leaves open some very unsavory possibilities in the future. 

Now, if it is simply a matter of writing a bill that does NOTHING other than compel states to recognize all licenses (like drivers, marriage, etc...) issued by other states then it MIGHT be OK. But I have real concerns with the unintended consequences that might come to light when that door gets opened. 

 

[Oh Shoot]

7 hours ago, 300winmag said:

LEOSA that allows local and state police to carry off duty in all 50 states is a federal law and hasn't been challenged federally in court yet on constitutional grounds so I would say federal carry reciprocity would be treated the same. 

That's why I said that a "national carry permit" would more likely pass judicial muster than forced reciprocity for individual state permits. 

- OS

[Wingshooter]

I don't like the Feds getting involved in this. They should concentrate their efforts on reading, understanding and simply upholding the Second Amendment then the rest will work itself out.

[xsubsailor]

15 hours ago, Wingshooter said:

I don't like the Feds getting involved in this. They should concentrate their efforts on reading, understanding and simply upholding the Second Amendment then the rest will work itself out.

 From your mouth (keyboard) to their ears  

House Republicans are re-launching a caucus with the goal of advancing pro-gun rights legislation on Capitol Hill.

According to a statement from the office of Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., the congressman will be chairing the third iteration of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus. Earlier versions were active from 2004-08 and 2009-13.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

 

“The recent election results present us with a new opportunity to advance pro-gun legislation and reverse the erosion of the Second Amendment that's occurred over the last few decades. I look forward to working with the new President and this determined group of conservatives to promote a pro-gun agenda,” Massie said in the statement.

The caucus will include: Reps. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C.; Ted Yoho, R-Fla.; Brian Babin, R-Texas; Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.; Mark Meadows, R-N.C.; Ken Buck, R-Colo.; Alex Mooney R-W.Va.; Justin Amash, R-Mich; Jody Hice, R-Ga.; Dave Brat, R-Va.; Warren Davidson, R-Ohio; Scott Perry, R-Pa.; and James Comer, R-Ky.

The group intends to lead efforts in the House to “pass meaningful firearms legislation” and protect against any infringement on the Second Amendment.

"Preserving the right to keep and bear arms is essential to maintaining freedom and liberty in our country,” said former Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., who chaired the caucus during its second run from 2009 through 2013.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/09/members-congress-to-reload-gun-rights-caucus.html

Edited December 10, 2016 by xsubsailor

[JAB]

I have said , before - exactly as Cruel Hand Luke said - a federal government that says all states must allow carry can also say that no states can allow carry.

Further, as I read the description of the bill, it would only compel those states that allow carry to observe other states' permits.  Well, with the reciprocity agreements that many states already have this bill wouldn't do much beyond having the feds stick their finger in the pie with little to no benefit to us.

Even if this did allow us to carry in, say, New York - because they technically have handgun carry - I wouldn't because their laws would be more than I'd want to deal with.  That is if I ever go back to New York which is something I hope not to do.

Edited December 10, 2016 by JAB

[macville]

On December 9, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Oh Shoot said:

That's why I said that a "national carry permit" would more likely pass judicial muster than forced reciprocity for individual state permits. 

- OS

That makes no sense to me. Heller somewhat incorporated the second amendment to apply to ALL states. So why couldn't they incorporate the "bear" arms also? That seems like a very logical step for forcing other states to accept other state carry permits. A federal carry permit would not pass constitutional muster because it would be infringing from the federal level (though, there are plenty of federal laws that infringe that they seem to be okay with.) 

[Oh Shoot]

27 minutes ago, macville said:

That makes no sense to me. Heller somewhat incorporated the second amendment to apply to ALL states. So why couldn't they incorporate the "bear" arms also? That seems like a very logical step for forcing other states to accept other state carry permits. A federal carry permit would not pass constitutional muster because it would be infringing from the federal level (though, there are plenty of federal laws that infringe that they seem to be okay with.) 

Heller didn't do anything for the states, only for federal districts, it was McDonald that incorporated the right to own common firearms. It did not mandate exactly what hoops the individual states may still impose to do so, only suggested that they be "reasonable". Registration, defining and banning "assault weapons", guns without certain safety features, hicap mags, etc, has all so far withstood that.

In similar vein, unless SCOTUS went farther than in McDonald, I can't see that incorporating "bearing" to all states would mean much more than states could no longer be "may issue" but would have to be "shall issue", that's about it. Same as before, it would not remove whatever "reasonable" hoops you need to do it (permits), and certainly wouldn't mandate all states agree on anything beyond that, like which permits each honors.

- OS

Edited December 11, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[macville]

On December 10, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Oh Shoot said:

Heller didn't do anything for the states, only for federal districts, it was McDonald that incorporated the right to own common firearms. It did not mandate exactly what hoops the individual states may still impose to do so, only suggested that they be "reasonable". Registration, defining and banning "assault weapons", guns without certain safety features, hicap mags, etc, has all so far withstood that.

In similar vein, unless SCOTUS went farther than in McDonald, I can't see that incorporating "bearing" to all states would mean much more than states could no longer be "may issue" but would have to be "shall issue", that's about it. Same as before, it would not remove whatever "reasonable" hoops you need to do it (permits), and certainly wouldn't mandate all states agree on anything beyond that, like which permits each honors.

Sorry, I meant McDonald. But what I was getting after was that the SC did say that the 2d Amendment does apply to just more than the federal government (incorporation). That's an important basis for any future ruling. Of course, I often times wonder if we are reading the same documents when I see much of what the SC writes. Then, I remember that these people went to law school where they weren't taught to read the plainly written words and go with that, but were taught on how to redefine the law to win (huge differences.) Sometimes people's heads are so buried in something they can't see how simple things are and because of that you can look at how inconsistent their rulings are. Heck, the gay marriage ruling should make national carry an easy ruling, but they won't let it because of politics.

Edited December 12, 2016 by macville

[JAB]

On 12/10/2016 at 6:40 PM, macville said:

That makes no sense to me. Heller somewhat incorporated the second amendment to apply to ALL states. So why couldn't they incorporate the "bear" arms also? That seems like a very logical step for forcing other states to accept other state carry permits. A federal carry permit would not pass constitutional muster because it would be infringing from the federal level (though, there are plenty of federal laws that infringe that they seem to be okay with.) 

As much as I hate to say it and as much as we (and that 'we' certainly includes me) may not like it if we give an honest reading of the 2nd Amendment we have to admit it has nothing to do with carrying (or even owning) handguns for self defense.  Whenever the Supreme Court or any other government entity 'finds' that it does it is only because they don't want to admit that the real reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from them - the government - and to guarantee our rights to be able to bear arms in order to do so, if necessary.  If they admit that, however, then they would have to admit that fully automatic and other 'military style' arms are what the Amendment should be protecting and that federal regulation of such arms is unconstitutional.

Edited December 12, 2016 by JAB

[quickbiscuit]

8 hours ago, JAB said:

As much as I hate to say it and as much as we (and that 'we' certainly includes me) may not like it if we give an honest reading of the 2nd Amendment we have to admit it has nothing to do with carrying (or even owning) handguns for self defense.  Whenever the Supreme Court or any other government entity 'finds' that it does it is only because they don't want to admit that the real reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from them - the government - and to guarantee our rights to be able to bear arms in order to do so, if necessary.  If they admit that, however, then they would have to admit that fully automatic and other 'military style' arms are what the Amendment should be protecting and that federal regulation of such arms is unconstitutional.

I largely agree with this, except that I understand the definition of arms to include handguns and ownership therefore protected.  The "in common use at the time" phrase is used in cases dating prior to 1850, and I agree that a proper interpretation of the 2A protects all military arms, including automatics.  I have never bought into the "constitutional carry" argument, because I think that's asking something of the 2A that just isn't there.  Seems that the majority of gun enthusiasts don't accept that, however.

[300winmag]

A lot of court cases in various states during the 1800's said that bans on concealed carry were legal because OPEN carry was not made illegal.

From my reading as long as a state at least open carry (without a permit), then it is probably constitutional to require a permit for concealing. 

I don't necessarily like that, but it seems to be as long as someone can open carry handguns and long guns without paying a fee to the state, then that person is not having his right to bear (carry) arms infringed.

[quickbiscuit]

24 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

A lot of court cases in various states during the 1800's said that bans on concealed carry were legal because OPEN carry was not made illegal.

From my reading as long as a state at least open carry (without a permit), then it is probably constitutional to require a permit for concealing. 

I don't necessarily like that, but it seems to be as long as someone can open carry handguns and long guns without paying a fee to the state, then that person is not having his right to bear (carry) arms infringed.

Until 1989 (really 1994 with shall issue) even open carry was illegal in Tennessee unless it was an "army or navy pistol carried openly in the hand."  Historically, Tennessee courts have not interpreted the 2A as creating any sort of right to carry.

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, quickbiscuit said:

.... Historically, Tennessee courts have not interpreted the 2A as creating any sort of right to carry.

Not surprising, since our own state Constitution doesn't create that either, plainly says legislature may limit it.

- OS

[300winmag]

Yeah I am surprised that Tennessee has been able to get by constitutionally with having practically no free way to openly carry any sort of firearm, especially long guns by the way the state constitution is written because it is a mirror image of the TX constitution granting legislature ability to restrict 'wearing' of arms.  Can't really wear a long gun like you can a handgun. Long gun carry has been legal down there forever but handguns have always been restricted in some way, whether that be carrying on a license, hunting/fishing, or while traveling.

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by 300winmag

[JAB]

13 hours ago, 300winmag said:

A lot of court cases in various states during the 1800's said that bans on concealed carry were legal because OPEN carry was not made illegal.

From my reading as long as a state at least open carry (without a permit), then it is probably constitutional to require a permit for concealing. 

I don't necessarily like that, but it seems to be as long as someone can open carry handguns and long guns without paying a fee to the state, then that person is not having his right to bear (carry) arms infringed.

A couple of years ago I came across information about an interesting case, waaaaayyy back in 1840, where a man had been charged with carrying a Bowie knife.  He tried to avoid the charges by citing the clause in the TN state constitution which protected the 'bearing of arms'.  His attempt failed because, the court stated, the right to bear arms refers only to such arms that would be necessary for the common defense, i.e. weapons of war/military.  As, according to the finding, a Bowie knife is not a common weapon of war 'bearing' a Bowie knife is not a protected right.  So, less that 60 years after the U.S. Constitution was written and 30 years before the current Tennessee State Constitution was written and ratified (this is the third TN constitution - in 1840 the second - which had just gone into effect five years before in 1835 would have been in effect) courts in Tennessee were already finding that only military type weapons or weapons normally used for the 'common defense' were protected.  Of course, the state is under a different constitution now but from what I can tell the wording protecting the bearing of arms didn't change much except that it removed a phrase that seems to have been in the earlier version which secured the right only for 'free white citizens'.  Further, and perhaps even more importantly, the court opined that the legislature has the right to regulate the 'manner in which these arms may be employed.'

My point is that, although by 1840 all of the Founding Fathers were almost certainly deceased, the people involved in this case were likely alive during the latter part of the Founders' lives.  Therefore, these folks likely shared many of the same sentiments and, possibly, understood the intend of the Second Amendment as well as state constitutional protections of the right to keep and bear arms in a manner much more closely aligned with the original intent than we may have, today.

Here are a couple of links to information about the case:

http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/aymette_v_state.txt

and here is a link to the .pdf where I got the info about the different versions of the Tennessee Constitution:

https://www.tn.gov/sos/bluebook/11-12/TS5_TNFoundingDocs.pdf

Here are a couple of links to information about a different case from 1871 in which a court found that, under the TN Constitution, while the bearing of arms can be 'regulated' as a political right (pretty much in line with the finding in the above case) the ownership or 'keeping' of arms is a personal, individual right.  This case would have taken place one year after the adoption of the current Tennessee Constitution:

http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=25

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/andrews_v_state.txt

Interesting stuff, I think.

Edited December 13, 2016 by JAB

[macville]

On December 12, 2016 at 10:23 AM, JAB said:

As much as I hate to say it and as much as we (and that 'we' certainly includes me) may not like it if we give an honest reading of the 2nd Amendment we have to admit it has nothing to do with carrying (or even owning) handguns for self defense.  Whenever the Supreme Court or any other government entity 'finds' that it does it is only because they don't want to admit that the real reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from them - the government - and to guarantee our rights to be able to bear arms in order to do so, if necessary.  If they admit that, however, then they would have to admit that fully automatic and other 'military style' arms are what the Amendment should be protecting and that federal regulation of such arms is unconstitutional.

Who's to say that I don't need to carry a handgun to protect myself from the government each time I leave my house? Handguns were also used in war at that time, so it's fair to say that they are military weapons. The key here is that it plainly says, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. It doesn't specify that the right only exists while going against the government. There's quite a few quotes from the founding fathers that back this view up. But let's be really honest, politicians started ignoring the constitution before the ink was even dry on it.

[JAB]

19 hours ago, macville said:

Who's to say that I don't need to carry a handgun to protect myself from the government each time I leave my house? Handguns were also used in war at that time, so it's fair to say that they are military weapons. The key here is that it plainly says, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. It doesn't specify that the right only exists while going against the government. There's quite a few quotes from the founding fathers that back this view up. But let's be really honest, politicians started ignoring the constitution before the ink was even dry on it.

As I pointed out in the post, above, even very early on - when people who might even have known the Founders were still very much alive and active - the courts ruled that the right of the People to bear arms applies to such bearing of arms as is necessary for the common defense, just like the document says.  Further, TN courts ruled that 'bearing' arms is not a personal, individual right but is, instead, a political right of the People as a whole - i.e. the People or the citizenry as a whole when acting in the common defense of the People as a whole not individuals acting in personal defense.  This means that, while the antis' argument that the right is somehow tied to being in the National Guard, etc. is obviously complete B.S. as it is a right of the People (as a whole, not individually) the argument that there is somehow a right to carry for individual, personal protection also does not hold up to scrutiny.  Now, I'm not saying I like it - I don't - but it is there in black and white from courts of the time.  Further, as exemplified above, those courts found that owning weapons - especially military style arms - is a personal, individual right that cannot be regulated by the government.  So, in short - as much as I don't like it - even the precedents from the time when state and federal constitutions were being written state that there is no constitutionally protected right to edc a firearm for personal protection, presumably from the government or anyone else and that state regulations on the carry or 'wearing' of arms do not violate the Constitution.  However, those same courts set a precedent that there is a constitutionally protected right to own, say, a fully automatic rifle without any government interference.  This means that the state government and (based on the writings of Madison who actually wrote most of the Bill of Rights) the federal government have no right to restrict, limit or ban the ownership of any type of personal arm and that applies especially to 'military style arms' - the very types of arms that the antis specifically say they want to ban, the very type of arms that the antis argue no one 'needs' and the very types of arms which often currently require an unconstitutional tax stamp before one can 'legally' own them.

The reason I think we as gun rights advocates should vehemently point out those rulings and precedents, even though it would mean admitting that there really isn't any such thing as Constitutional carry when it comes to personal defense, is that they do not allow the government to restrict ownership of the very types of arms we would need if we ever did have to act upon the real reason 'the right to bear arms' is protected in order to curtail a tyrannical government.  By allowing the Second Amendment to be changed by the courts into something that simply applies to carrying a handgun for personal protection or owning a shotgun for home defense we are also allowing, as an unintended consequence, Constitutional protection for the ownership of military style arms to be swept under the rug.  I'd rather have a system where states can regulate the carrying of arms for personal protection and, in Tennessee, I can get an HCP to carry - even if I have to pay for it - and the government cannot regulate the ownership of personal arms, period than a system where the Second Amendment means I can carry my J-frame but the government can tell us what firearms we can or can't own.  I am certainly not a lawyer but I can read pretty well and the way the law is written and was ruled upon during or near the time it was written it appears that it really is either one or the other.

Edited December 14, 2016 by JAB