House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[Oh Shoot]

It is not about states rights at all. Permits and the concept of them is infringement of the second. State laws about gun ownership is infringement of the second. The feds simply need to uphold the constitution and let people own and carry weapons, and let that stand....

I'm all for the fed to repeal all gun laws and incorporate that so that all states must comply. Let the states fight that out in court.

However, I am NOT for the fed enacting any additional gun law, not even one that seems to benefit carry rights. They get away with that, and next thing you know it swings the other way. After all, if the fed passes additional law allowing everyone to carry in any state, an opposite law allowing only carry in resident state could stand too, eh? Or how about no carry in ANY state? If one law passes muster, why wouldn't they all?

I'm for REPEAL of exiting gun laws only, no more added, none.

- OS

[strickj]

I would just like to see permits recognized in Article 4, Section 1.

[Guest PapaB]

So, do you guys think our Federal Constitution should trump the Constitution of each State, or the State Constitution wins? I've noticed a lot of mention of the 2nd Amendment (which we all love) but what about State Constitutions if they each address the issue differently? Not giving an opinion, just curious.

[JayC]

So, do you guys think our Federal Constitution should trump the Constitution of each State, or the State Constitution wins? I've noticed a lot of mention of the 2nd Amendment (which we all love) but what about State Constitutions if they each address the issue differently? Not giving an opinion, just curious.

The federal Constitution already trumps the states constitutions in the power enumerated to the Federal government. 14th Amendment binds the states to uphold the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) among other things.

Now was it a smart idea for the state to pass the 14th Amendment? Probably not, but a great number of southern state legislatures were under armed guard by North invaders at the time, and in the case of TN legislators were threatened with death by the Military "governor" to pass reconstruction laws and amendments.

But that in an entirely different discussion that is often left out of US history

You do have another legal theory that the 2nd and 10th Amendment prevents both states and the federal government from passing any law that infringes on the ownership and carrying of weapons, but to my knowledge nobody has brought this argument up to SCOTUS yet.

10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

2nd Amendment:

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.

One could argue that the federal constitution prohibited both the federal and state governments on day one from infringing on the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/61825-h-r-822-national-right-carry-reciprocity-act-2011-a.html

[Guest don_m]

I live in Pennsylvania and travel to New Hampshire occasionally (used to live there). The trip takes me through the People's Republics of New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. I have no doubt that they'd all either find a way to make reciprocity impractical or just join Illinois as no-carry states. Same with Maryland, California, and Hawaii. This law would get the feds involved in carry law and provide little or no benefit to anyone beyond what they can have today.

[Guest RobThatsMe]

I just got this update on the bill.

The article is written by Chris W. Cox is the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.

It's a good read, and tries to explain of few of our concerns.

: Concealed Carry | National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act | Your right to self-defense shouldn't end at state borders | The Daily Caller

[Guest PapaB]

I have to agree with the assessment by don_m.

I have no doubt that they'd all either find a way to make reciprocity impractical or just join Illinois as no-carry states.

Look at how little effect the SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 has had. The same with the 2010 ruling in McDonald v. The City of Chicago and the effect it hasn't had on Illinois and other States.

[Guest PapaB]

JayC said

The federal Constitution already trumps the states constitutions in the power enumerated to the Federal government. 14th Amendment binds the states to uphold the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) among other things.

SCOTUS actually said

We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States.

(bold added by me)

This is from "Opinion of the Court No. 08-1521, OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL." June 28, 2010.

You're right in that they ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies in full force to the Federal Government and all the States. They do not agree, however, that any Amendment binds the States to uphold the Bill of Rights in its entirety.

I had forgotten about the specifics of the McDonald ruling until you made that statement so I thank you.

To the original point of this thread. The ruling by SCOTUS in McDonald vs. Chicago, where they bound the 2nd Amendment to the States, seems to allow for a national reciprocity. I don't think anyone could successfully argue that the feds don't have legal precedent to pass such a law.

I'm reminded of the old saying, "be careful of what you wish for, you might just get it."

[1gewehr]

I just got this update on the bill.

The article is written by Chris W. Cox is the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.

It's a good read, and tries to explain of few of our concerns.

: Concealed Carry | National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act | Your right to self-defense shouldn't end at state borders | The Daily Caller

Actually, the article is just a whitewash. It really doesn't explain anything, just gives vague assurances. Either the 2nd Amendment means what it says and this bill is superfluous, or Congressional powers have no restriction and this new bill can be regulated by ATF to be meaningless.

[Guest 270win]

It seems like some in Congress are trying to do what was done a few years ago to allow local and state LEO's to carry handguns off duty in every state. HR218 was not written well. Congress is probably using the interstate commerce clause in some way. Driver licenses and marriage licenses are recognized by state laws, not federal laws.

[Erik88]

interesting testimony if anyone is interested.

http://davekopel.org/Testimony/HR822-Kopel.pdf

[chances R]

I'd rather have fewer states to carry in than allow the gov't to create some abomination under the auspices of the Commerce Clause. Anytime the Com. Clause is used for anything, you can take it as a sure sign the gov't is about to rape you with something.

Exactly...+me too

[JayC]

It seems like some in Congress are trying to do what was done a few years ago to allow local and state LEO's to carry handguns off duty in every state. HR218 was not written well. Congress is probably using the interstate commerce clause in some way. Driver licenses and marriage licenses are recognized by state laws, not federal laws.

Drivers licenses are controlled by a number of federal laws, and the fact that you only need 1 drivers license today is because of a federal law.

Does that make it right? No. But, if SCOTUS would grow a pair and force states and the federal government to follow the constitution(s) all of this would be mute.

Even IL has a state constitution that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, yet nobody is forcing the states to follow their constitutions nor the Federal constitutions.

[Guest RobThatsMe]

interesting testimony if anyone is interested.

http://davekopel.org/Testimony/HR822-Kopel.pdf

Thanks for sharing Errik88,

It's a good read, and has some interesting points.

I found Page 10 made some interesting comments.

Rob

[mcurrier]

To my mind, although I don't like how some states handle the issue, this is an issue for the states to handle and to hash out between themselves. It is not an issue that the Federal government needs (or should have the authority) to get involved in. After all, a fedgov with the power to tell states that they have to recognize other states' permits also has the authority to tell states that they have to meet other states' criteria for issuing permits, claiming that such a 'compromise' is necessary in order to be fair to the states with more stringent (as in draconian) requirements. Such would be a Pyrrhic victory. Sure, your permit would be recognized in other states if you could get a permit in the first place - which would be unlikely if all states had to meet (for instance) the New York requirement that the applicant have a 'valid reason' for having a permit.

After that, how long before the fedgov tells all states that they have to meet the criteria for purchasing a handgun that are used in New York, etc. requiring permits and waiting periods. After all, if someone might eventually be allowed to carry a firearm in New York shouldn't their purchase of said firearm be up to New York's purchasing standards? That sounds like a fair 'compromise', right?

Think about it - do you really want the federal government, headed by the Obama administration, to get a foot or even a toe in the door of what has traditionally been a states rights issue? I don't as I can't believe for one minute that they would do so with a view of actually expanding our rights. Instead, it would be a way to get us to go along with their gaining some control of rights over which they currently have no authority.

+999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

[JAB]

Whenever someone tries to throw out the 'well regulated militia' phrase as meaning that the 2A applies only to those serving in some sort of military capacity, I call BS and point to The Federalist #46. In that document, James Madison (who penned much of the Bill of Rights) speaks of a 'militia' in clear terms. He uses the term 'militia' to mean any and all able-bodied [implied male, at the time] citizens coming together to resist government tyranny. To my non-lawyer mind (which is, nontheless, perfectly capable of reading more or less plain English), it is clear that 'well-regulated' means that such a militia should have commanders chosen from within their number - i.e. it is the militia (if it became necessary to form same) that should be 'well-regulated', not the firearms. Further, as the stated purpose is to be able to repel the advances of a tyrannical government, backed by a standing military, it is clear that the Second Amendment applies to firearms used for military purposes. In today's world, that would mean that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with 'sporting purposes' and everything to do with protecting the individual right to own so-called 'assault rifles' and so on. Any and all 'assault weapon' bans are unconstitutional under the auspices of the Second Amendment as it was originally intended.

That is all good but there is another side of the coin that we, as gun owners, willfully ignore when wanting to claim that the Second Amendment, in its original intent and purpose, also protects our right to carry personal arms for self defense. That is the Second Amendment, as written and intended by the Founders, has everything to do with military arms and nothing to do with a right to carry a self defense firearm. I believe this is because the right to self defense, as well as the right to hunt, was not only seen as a natural right by our Founders but was also 'common sense' that didn't require putting down in writing. IMO, the Second Amendment has never negated a state's right to regulate the carry of small arms of the type that have no significant, military purpose. In other words, the Second Amendment ain't about carrying a Kel Tec P3AT or a S&W 642 any more than it is about deer hunting. Carry of personal arms has always been (and remains) a states' rights issue, not a Federally regulated one.

Edited September 19, 2011 by JAB

[Oh Shoot]

....IMO, the Second Amendment has never negated a state's right to regulate the carry of small arms of the type that have no significant, military purpose. In other words, the Second Amendment ain't about carrying a Kel Tec P3AT or a S&W 642 any more than it is about deer hunting. Carry of personal arms has always been (and remains) a states' rights issue, not a Federally regulated one.

I agree totally that having or carrying guns for self protection and hunting is not the reason Da Boys put 2A in the Constitution, although we seem to be in the minority of constitutional opinion on such.

However, I'm not at all similarly convinced they would have seen this as a states' rights issue either. Rather, I'd say they simply didn't see that it would ever be an "issue" at all, anymore than owning and carrying a fishing pole or hoe or knife would be an "issue".

Wise as they were, they simply didn't think of everything. One of the biggest oversights was the concept of the career politician, but that's another issue they didn't think would be one.

- OS

[DaveTN]

I agree totally that having or carrying guns for self protection and hunting is not the reason Da Boys put 2A in the Constitution, although we seem to be in the minority of constitutional opinion on such.

However, I'm not at all similarly convinced they would have seen this as a states' rights issue either. Rather, I'd say they simply didn't see that it would ever be an "issue" at all, anymore than owning and carrying a fishing pole or hoe or knife would be an "issue".

Wise as they were, they simply didn't think of everything. One of the biggest oversights was the concept of the career politician, but that's another issue they didn't think would be one.

- OS

Not many care what they thought. Had they known that nearly 75 years later the country would be torn apart by a civil war over States Rights; maybe some things would have been different. For one the 2^nd amendment would have been more specific.

I don’t think the 2nd amendment was written was written with personal protection in mind; it’s pretty clear that it wasn’t. I think personal protection is an inalienable right. Unfortunately the courts don’t agree.

They gave us a blueprint to start from. They expected the people to carry on. They had no way to know about things like career politicians, gangs, drugs, cars, aircraft, computers, etc.

However, they didn’t want “The People†to rule the country. If they had our form of government would be a Democracy instead of a Republic. In a democracy we would simply vote on whether or not we can carry guns. I don’t want to see that; we would lose.

[Oh Shoot]

,,,However, they didn’t want “The People” to rule the country. If they had our form of government would be a Democracy instead of a Republic. In a democracy we would simply vote on whether or not we can carry guns. I don’t want to see that; we would lose.

Exactly. I cringe every time I hear "the majority should rule" in arguments where a legal decision is made for a relatively small group of citizens.

Although those protections have increased to the point of absurdity (hate crime, rights for illegal aliens and foreign combatants, public prayer, even display of the flag and pledge of allegiance and what not), it's all probably better than the "rule by majority" alternative, as I agree with you that the citizenry would simply shortsightedly vote away our existing rights ("you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time..." and that much of the adage would suffice).

So yes I agree with you that the Founders did indeed have the catchall wisdom to presage H.L. Mencken's sentiment regarding the intelligence of the American public -- or to be a bit more charitable, perhaps at least the informed involvement of same.

- OS

[JAB]

However, I'm not at all similarly convinced they would have seen this as a states' rights issue either. Rather, I'd say they simply didn't see that it would ever be an "issue" at all, anymore than owning and carrying a fishing pole or hoe or knife would be an "issue".

- OS

I agree that they probably never thought it would be an issue. As I said, they probably felt that self defense was a natural right (as do I and probably most folks here) and being equipped for same was only common sense. That said, unless I am mistaken, I don't believe the Constitution gives the Feds the power to regulate the carry of arms. The Constitution further says that any power not specifically given to the Fed falls to the States or to the People. As the Constitution does not specifically forbid the regulation of firearms carry for self defense nor does it (to my knowledge) specifically grant that power to the Fed then that probably does make carry regulation, once such became an issue of laws and rules, a states' rights issue (although I agree that it never should have been an issue in the first place.)

Edited September 20, 2011 by JAB

[Worriedman]

There is no mention of regulatory provision with regard to firearms anywhere in the Constitution, that document being a list of chains placed on the Federal Government by the States. Remember, government has no rights, they only have power given by the People or the States. The Amendments were intended to vouchsafe Rights of the People, further constraining the Federal Government in it's powers. The Second, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was a further wrap of chain on the Federal Government with respect to the issue. It is the only mention, and is a plain rebuttal of the ability of the Feds to regulate arms ownership and carry by the citizen. The Tenth further limits the Fed, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is specific, but anti-big government, so it too is under fire by those who would rule instead of govern.