National CCW for those supporting states right

[Dog Soldier]

I must say I have never seen so many gun owners wanting Federal intervention into gun ownership? Now that is a switch. It seems they were the ones who created and passed the NFA of 1934. By the stroke of a pen no full autos, no stocked handguns or suppressors with out accepting BATFE regulations. And there are those expensive fees. Now of course the Democrats would never over tax your rights. If you like your FFL you can keep your FFL.

 

[Prijador]

Just think instead of 50 different governments it would take only one Liberal Democrat to end the rights in all 50 states.

It would *already* only take one Liberal Democrat to end the rights in all 50 states. They would eviscerate the 2A just like Mexico's version of the RKBA is de facto null and void. "States rights" mean nothing for them, for something they don't even consider a right to begin with. How, exactly, would states rights stop them???

 

[Dog Soldier]

It is next to impossible to change the Amendments to our Constitution. Most challenges to the 2nd Amendment have been struck down. More recently Illnoise was ordered to offer CCW to their citizens.
Our system is not perfect, granted. But we are not Mexico.

 

[Old Dog]

True reciprocity will never happen. Believing that somehow all the states will come together in some sort of collective epiphany and decide to recognize each others' concealed carry licenses is a pipe dream.

It took the federal government to step in just to get each state to allow law enforcement officers (and retired law enforcement personnel) to carry concealed handguns nationwide. And this system is still fraught with issues.

Do we want the federal government to force states to recognize other states' licenses? Probably not.

But would that be better than the current patchwork of reciprocity and the few honorable states that recognize some states even though some of those states might not recognize their licenses? Possibly. We can't know all the unintended consequences of a federal law requiring nationwide reciprocity, though I personally doubt it would be so dire as some here predict.

Would you rather pay a couple hundred dollars (or more) every so often to exercise your right to carry nationwide, or pay only what you've already been paying regularly to only be allowed to carry in a handful of states?

Now one guy says, "It would *already* only take one Liberal Democrat to end the rights in all 50 states. They would eviscerate the 2A just like Mexico's version of the RKBA is de facto null and void."

Only one Liberal Democrat {sic} to end the rights in all 50 states? Um, have you studied how legislation works in the United States? Mexico? Really?

 

[Prijador]

Edit: yes, we should absolutely use Federal power to force states to recognize - and not infringe - on Constitutionally-protected rights.
"Assault weapons" bans? Gone.
NFA? Gone (in while or at least in part)
CCW reciprocity for everybody.

Only one Liberal Democrat {sic? Why sic? Seems to be the correct spelling to me} to end the rights in all 50 states? Um, have you studied how legislation works in the United States? Mexico? Really?

Why yes, yes I do understand, thank you for inquiring.
I suppose you could say it took two, if you want to count both Hughes and Rangel, in the case of select fire weapons - technically not a full ban, of course, but close enough for government work.
Add the four letters of "semi" to "automatic" in a ban, and I would consider that an evisceration of the 2A. They are working on that one for the coming year in California.

Dog Soldier asked rhetorically about "one liberal Democrat". So while inaccurate, I presumed his intent: in some theoretical future scenario where the liberal Democrats control the federal government - one liberal Democrat comes up with some imaginative idea (I don't know, requiring UBCs, and then revoking all FFLs, etc. who knows?)... some idea that would de facto outlaw CCL or even evicerate the 2A as a practical matter - so one comes up with the idea, enough of the other like-minded Congress critters nod in slack-jawed agreement and a liberal Democrat POTUS eagerly signs it whilst frothing at the mouth and declaring gun-free utopia is upon us.
So yes, it would take more than one.

My POINT is that for the pro-RKBA crowd, to refrain from Federal legislation - legislation to ensure citizens in all states can enjoy their rights without molestation - out of respect for states rights, because at some future date the anti-RKBA people might use Federal legislation to restrict everyone is silly - the Anti's will use Federal legislation every chance they can get - they just haven't had much chance of success, lately.

One of big reasons for the Constitution and the Federal government is to protect the rights of all citizens.
States don't get to just randomly infringe on any of the other amendments in the BoR, after all.
And no, changing or adding an amendment to the Constitution isn't necessary at all - they can do it with just a law, and creat havoc for the many years it takes for the SCOTUS to strike it down - which notably -still- hasn't occurred with the outlandishly silly state "assault weapons" bans.

Yes, this is certainly fraught with danger - the Hughes amendment being a perfect example. Option B is simply to continue losing ground, while something like a third of the country has infringement after infringement piled on, along with anyone who happens to travel through those states.

 

[Old Dog]

Sorry, I just don't get your reasoning. It's already clearly apparent that gun-control advocates have figured out that it's easier to accomplish their goals by working at the grass-roots level, going state by state. Bloomberg, Soros and their ilk are throwing millions at the anti-gun groups in key states -- many, like mine, which formerly possessed excellent gun laws (from our standpoint) -- and seeing useless legislation such as UBCs passing easily. Comes now the other sort of legislation, like another recently passed law in my state (I-1491, that denies due process to many and will result in forfeiture of gun rights based solely on another person's statements to a judge --the law purports to be a mechanism for family members to temporarily remove firearms from those who are violent or mentally ill --- sure to be used in contentious domestic situations, including divorces or child custody cases) ...

California is becoming a lost cause, and even in other formerly pro-gun states, there's pending legislation with excellent chances of passing that would roll back many advances ... For every new state law that is pro-gun in nature, we're seeing two passed in other states that further restrict or infringe rights.

Your main option seems to be "do nothing" and let's just see if we can maintain the status quo. Sorry, that ain't working. It may be time to take advantage of a Republican House, Senate and President to see if we can get well-written legislation on a federal level that might actually improve things.

You seem to be saying that at some point in the future, one or two liberal Democrats and a frothing-at-the-mouth Democrat President would be able to outlaw concealed carry and eviscerate the Second Amendment ... so don't try?

 

[lysanderxiii]

But as of right now, there are States that are not issuing "drivers licenses" to their own residents, are not recognizing "out-of-State drivers licenses" of others, and may even be profiling those suspected to have "out-of-state drivers licenses." And while drivers licenses are not mentioned in the USC, "drivers licenses" are mentioned by name, at the top, and with the simplest of wording.

So even though the doctrine that is supposed to determine how the country is run is on our side, and public opinion is on our side, the Federal government is not, many State governments are not, and plenty of local politicians everywhere or not. So does this mean we get screwed regardless of what direction we move in? Who is it in authority then that can implement "shall not be infringed"?

If a State violates any of the other Constitutional rights, the Federal government has historically taken action to ensure that such right is not infringed upon. For example, if California decided to pass a law requiring all citizens to get fingerprinted, take a poly, and submit to a urine test before being able to speak freely, the USC would override CA's authority to do so and action would be taken.

So if a State or a locality further infringers upon the 2A, what do we do? Aren't we currently presented with a solid opportunity to roll back some of the gun control damage done by all levels of government?

What you are suggesting is the usual liberal solution to your problems.

Which is:

If you can't get other states to agree with your states position, get the Federal government to make them see it your way.

Bad move. That only sets more precedents that the Federal Govt can and should interfere with States internal affairs.

The only way this problem should be solved in increase the pressure INSIDE the problem states to see the meaning of the 2A. Change should come from within, not from outside....

 

[lysanderxiii]

It may be time to take advantage of a Republican House, Senate and President to see if we can get well-written legislation on a federal level that might actually improve things.

The President and Congress will not always be pro-gun-ish.

Once we establish the precedent that the Federal government can, and should take gun issues away from the states, what are you going to do when the anti-gun crowd has the upper hand.

NO. The states were assigned certain responsibilities, how, and if, people should be licensed for various things is one of them. The Federal Government has slowly usurped many of these already.

I say we take advantage of the current power balance to restore the proper balance between the Federal and State's governments.

Let's not forfeit the war for the sake of a single battle . . . .

 

[Prijador]

Once we establish the precedent that the Federal government can, and should take gun issues away from the states, what are you going to do when the anti-gun crowd has the upper hand.

NO. The states were assigned certain responsibilities, how, and if, people should be licensed for various things is one of them. The Federal Government has slowly usurped many of these already.

I say we take advantage of the current power balance to restore the proper balance between the Federal and State's governments.

Let's not forfeit the war for the sake of a single battle . . . .

Whoa.
States don't get to infringe on Constitutionally-protected rights - no matter how much the population is for it (e.g., the civil rights movement).
Why should a state be allowed to ban semi-automatic rifles? Or de facto ban concealed carry? Or ban certain groups of people by making more misdemeanors into felonies?

...and Establish precedent?
What do you call NFA, FOPA, the "Assault weapons" ban???
That's all the precedent they need...

The antis will use whatever power they can get - Federal, state, municipal - to ban as much as they can, when they can. They will ignore any "state's rights" we try to (re)balance anyway. May as well take the freedom we can get now - freedom is measured in number of people and time.

 

[readyeddy]

The federal government is already regulating gun ownership, along with the states. And sometimes the federal government steps in to prohibit state or local governments from infringing on 2A rights. Our struggle to support the 2A is at all levels of government, in all three branches, and within the media.

 

[cdk8]

NO. The states were assigned certain responsibilities, how, and if, people should be licensed for various things is one of them. The Federal Government has slowly usurped many of these already.

I was under the impression that States do NOT have the right to over-rule the USC, and the "responsibilities" you speak of can expand but not take away Constitutional rights? Am I wrong?

What you are suggesting is the usual liberal solution to your problems.

Which is:


Bad move. That only sets more precedents that the Federal Govt can and should interfere with States internal affairs.

The only way this problem should be solved in increase the pressure INSIDE the problem states to see the meaning of the 2A. Change should come from within, not from outside....

I don't care whether or not people agree with the 2A in regards to the recognition of the right, and this has nothing to do with "seeing it my way" because we aren't discussing entitlements or extended rights. This isn't a bathroom issue or about baking a cake, as it's not an obscure topic that the Founding Fathers chose not to specify upon. It's about our core doctrine that's worded clear as day being undermined by people a few steps above those who commit treason.

Some people disagree with free speech, the abolishment of slavery, or due process, and if they do that's a personal problem that shouldn't translate to affecting me from exercising my rights.

Precedents at both State and Federal levels have been used for years to attack the 2A...why can't we take the already established precedents and for once use them to our own benefit? We may finally come to a point where we have a gun-friendly AG, head of BATF, House, Senate, President, and Supreme Court, all at the same time, and I can't remember the last time that happened.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Whoa.
States don't get to infringe on Constitutionally-protected rights - no matter how much the population is for it (e.g., the civil rights movement).
Why should a state be allowed to ban semi-automatic rifles? Or de facto ban concealed carry? Or ban certain groups of people by making more misdemeanors into felonies?

Sure they can, until the USAG take them to task over it.

Last time I checked the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting US citizenship to all former slaves. It did not state "...all persons born or naturalized in the United States, except black people who get limited citizenship and will have some rights granted under the constitution withheld..."

It was just for a 100 years nobody bothered to make an issue of it.

You can do all sorts of illegal things, but until someone takes you into a court of law, nothing is going to happen to you.

...and Establish precedent?
What do you call NFA, FOPA, the "Assault weapons" ban???
That's all the precedent they need...

The antis will use whatever power they can get - Federal, state, municipal - to ban as much as they can, when they can. They will ignore any "state's rights" we try to (re)balance anyway. May as well take the freedom we can get now - freedom is measured in number of people and time.

No, there is no legal precedent (that I am aware of at any rate) allowing the federal government to establish rules and regulations a state must follow to issue a CCW. And if there are, I'd rather not open the door wider.

Back when I lived in Alabama, to get a CCW, you walked into the Sheriff's office and ask for a CCW, and handed the clerk your driver's license, he/she looked you up to see if you had any issues with the law and if you didn't he/she handed you a slip of paper, not a form, a slip of blank paper with words to the effect of "OK to issue, signed". You took that piece of paper over to the cashier, payed your $2.50 and got your license. I think it took me thirty minutes over a lunch hour, and that included the drive to the sheriff's office and back. During the same time frame in Virginia, there were forms to fill out, and you had to give reasons why you needed one, and waiting periods, and much larger fees.

May as well take the freedom we can get now...

At the expense of future generations? If so, we have already lost.

 

[Prijador]

No, there is no legal precedent (that I am aware of at any rate) allowing the federal government to establish rules and regulations a state must follow to issue a CCW. And if there are, I'd rather not open the door wider.
...
At the expense of future generations? If so, we have already lost.

The federal government has well established rules governing FFLs and firearm sales by FFLs which all states must adhere to. Plenty of precedent - more than they would need anyway (since they need exactly 0 precident)

Besides, the Federal Govt doesn't necessarily need to have a single rule about the hoops you have to jump through to get a CCW - states can still have (or not have) their forms and fees, etc., for licenses - it only has to say every state will honor every other state's licenses or Constitutional carry.

As for the last bit:
If we never take the opportunity to roll back infringements, we have already lost.
In the ban states, we are losing future generations RIGHT NOW. Today.
Many people can't really carry in their state, due to the onerous restrictions. That is absurd.

The same story plays out everywhere concealed carry becomes legal and available: the anti's screech about how the streets will run red with blood... and that scenario invariably fails to materialize, making them look like the idiots they are. People carry and it becomes normal. Future generations see this play out and learn from it. Make it harder and harder to exercise the RKBA, and there are fewer and fewer positive examples for future generations...

If you don't want CCW reciprocity, perhaps you don't travel or live near a ban state - many people are literally one wrong turn from a felony.
Regardless, allowing any "assault weapons" ban - state or otherwise - is completely ridiculous. Any laws on the books might take a looooong time to repeal, so a ban on "assault weapons" bans could prove quite durable.

The problem with relying on the SCOTUS can be that the circuit courts unfriendly to the RKBA happily rule any infringement is just peachy, and the ones friendly to the RKBA have no cases to rule on, since there are no infringements to challenge in their districts, thus there is no dissonance in the circuits for the SCOTUS to weigh in on, making it much less likely to take a case.

What IS your idea about how to expand and secure the RKBA, anyway (besides doing nothing at the Federal level, and wasting a golden opportunity to roll back some infringements...?)

 

[barnbwt]

-The actual (only) solution to this conundrum is that carry licensing is unconstitutional.
-14th amendment was the poster child for impossible policy & unintended consequences, so its spotty and subjective implementation by SCOTUS is more often than not the result of reality rather than politics
-1st amendment stipulates "congress" whereas the 2nd does not for a reason (i.e. 'incorporation' has always been in effect against states since the beginning)

 

[lysanderxiii]

What IS your idea about how to expand and secure the RKBA, anyway (besides doing nothing at the Federal level, and wasting a golden opportunity to roll back some infringements...?)

Change or repeal the existing problem Federal laws, not make more of them.

Challenge various problem state laws in court. This would be the most important thing. Settle once and for all, that the "arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment are not restricted to certain type without certain features, these 'assault weapons' bans, by the way, run contrary to the decision handed down in Miller vs the United States.

 

[lysanderxiii]

-The actual (only) solution to this conundrum is that carry licensing is unconstitutional.

That decision has already been made as an off-shoot from DC vs Heller (see point (2) of that decision)

 

[lysanderxiii]

This nonsense of comparing various licenses that are not on topic and whether or not they are interstate valid is beyond ridiculous.

Being a doctor, plumber, electrician, lawyer, or having a DL etc., and whether or not those credentials carry over from one state to another has nothing to do with constitutional rights.

It's ironic how most complain about the Fed overreaching on constitutional rights yet in the case of the 2A we let the states do the overreaching and are content to let them. I am generally for states taking care of their own business but as was mentioned, "It's only through Federal inaction that the Second Amendment has become infringed to the degree it has. It's going to take Federal action to roll back those infringments."

The ideal scenario would be a national "constitutional carry". No permits, no licenses, just a mandate/law. A national reciprocity mandate seems more realistic though.


However, regardless of what becomes, even if it were the "ideal", you can rest assured that some states will refuse to follow the law of the land. There are several current examples of this. In that sense I don't know that it matters what happens.

There is a big difference between "Congressional (legislative) action", "Executive action" and "Judicial actions" at the Federal level.

"It's only through Federal inaction that the Second Amendment has become infringed to the degree it has. It's going to take Federal action to roll back those infringments."

This is a true statement, however, the branch that need to take action is NOT the legislative branch. The various States need to be taken to court over laws that infringe on constitutional rights. The USAG can sue a state, if he/she feels that state law runs contrary to Federal laws or the Constitution, but they don't in the case of anti-gun laws. They are to busy trying to sue States over things like NC's house bill #2 . . .

More legislative action is not the answer.

 

[lysanderxiii]

But as of right now, there are States that are not issuing "drivers licenses" to their own residents, are not recognizing "out-of-State drivers licenses" of others, and may even be profiling those suspected to have "out-of-state drivers licenses." And while drivers licenses are not mentioned in the USC, "drivers licenses" are mentioned by name, at the top, and with the simplest of wording.

So even though the doctrine that is supposed to determine how the country is run is on our side, and public opinion is on our side, the Federal government is not, many State governments are not, and plenty of local politicians everywhere or not. So does this mean we get screwed regardless of what direction we move in? Who is it in authority then that can implement "shall not be infringed"?

If a State violates any of the other Constitutional rights, the Federal government has historically taken action to ensure that such right is not infringed upon. For example, if California decided to pass a law requiring all citizens to get fingerprinted, take a poly, and submit to a urine test before being able to speak freely, the USC would override CA's authority to do so and action would be taken.

So if a State or a locality further infringers upon the 2A, what do we do? Aren't we currently presented with a solid opportunity to roll back some of the gun control damage done by all levels of government?

Weather or not the Federal government takes action on State laws that run contrary to the Constitution, or Federal laws, is spotty at best. There are at least 30 states currently with laws that run against Federal laws, and the USAG has explicitly stated that they are not to interfere with those laws.

 

[barnbwt]

That decision has already been made as an off-shoot from DC vs Heller (see point (2) of that decision)

I wasn't making an observation on the status quo of carry licensing; I was stating the only logical solution to this conundrum of state vs. federal vs. individual rights (in fact, it's really more a matter of the feds using their power to impose individual rights upon the states). States have *exactly* as much leeway for voter registration as they do carry licensing at this time in history, so the proposed legislation should really be viewed more like the Voting Rights Act than the standard-issue federal power grab of state authority.

This is a true statement, however, the branch that need to take action is NOT the legislative branch. The various States need to be taken to court over laws that infringe on constitutional rights. The USAG can sue a state, if he/she feels that state law runs contrary to Federal laws or the Constitution, but they don't in the case of anti-gun laws.

Hailing from Texas, I am hardly a fan of the Voting Rights Act, but the fact is that such intrusive and unaccountable federal law over what are/have always been clearly state affairs, now has plenty of precedent when it concerns civil rights violations. Which things like May Issue licensing and gun-owner registration most definitely are (the 'good character' requirement in so many districts is either a *direct* remnant of Jim Crow's selective enforcement, or an exact duplicate of it adopted by non-historically-Jim Crow districts). While our nation was certainly *not* founded on the notion that the federal government would be the protector of civil rights by way of meddling directly in the legislative affairs of the several states, two hundred years, a civil war, and a bouquet of amendments pursuing this exact goal have us in a place where this is now the acceptable or even expected use of the federal government. We have long since abandoned the "laboratories of Democracy" model that let various states do their own thing so long as it did not impinge on other states or federal affairs, so it hardly unreasonable that we should pursue our goals with legislative tools at the federal level in addition to judicial and executive ones.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Change or repeal the existing problem Federal laws, not make more of them.

Challenge various problem state laws in court. This would be the most important thing.

I both agree and disagree with you, largely because your statements here are entirely too broad, and time is a factor;
-Repeal of the laws is always the most obvious and direct route to 'undoing' past mistakes, but is always the most difficult. Invariably, more than 1/3 of the senate discovers something they like about the bill to be axed (obviously the result of it requiring a majority to pass in the first place), leaving repeal a very ineffective mechanism for obtaining desired policy changes. A constitutional amendment mandating sunset clauses on all legislation would change this dynamic, but we don't have one yet, so we make do "evolving" bad policy into what we want through new legislation applied on top of it.
-A lot of the laws on the books give explicit discretion of enforcement & interpretation to the Executive Branch bureaucracy, even if this arrangement is a blatantly unconstitutional delegation of congress' inalienable duties. The first step to rectifying this through legislation or judgement is to have the executive cease defending or expanding this authority, and instead demand it return to congress or the courts.
-It should be abundantly clear by now that when it comes to gun cases, the federal judicial districts are badly plagued with selection bias. The nation's people have sorted themselves so starkly along political lines such as these, that the entire legal & social structure within a district strongly favor or disfavor gun laws. Where the laws are supported, every single layer of the legal system often without exception is eager to uphold all gun laws even in opposition to clear federal precedent, from local up to federal district; the pressure from judges, AGs, and the population is simply insurmountable for any one individual and their legal team. Invariably they are stymied & delayed, while the plaintiff either rots in jail or sees his fortune evaporate. Only a handful of cases get the backing of national rights groups with the resources and staff willing to take on such a huge sustained burden, pro bono. All the while these rare cases make their way through the decades-long legal appeals, ten times as many laws have passed, which the same biased court-system will be eager to claim are not bound by whatever precedent may come of the original pending case (assuming the SCOTUS will even hear them, which they haven't been for a decade). On the flip side, in districts where such laws are not supported, they simply do not pass into law, and have never existed, so there are neither plaintiffs nor damages to appeal for judgement. What is badly needed is for this segregated system to be upended; for the SCOTUS to do it's damn job at long last and decide between the supporting arguments of the anti-gun districts and the unspoken opposing arguments of the pro-gun districts, instead of playing peek-a-boo and pretending there is no conflict.
-In conjunction with this last point and your recommendation that the Executive sue the states for (presumably) denying their citizens their civil rights, this could certainly work. I would also argue that the passage of a federal law binding the states is a vehicle for forcing the Executive's hand; he either has to enforce it against the states (suing them) or seek to have the law struck down in SCOTUS, solidly defining precedent either way. Such a law is also far more durable/lasting until such time as states seek to defy it, since it would extend beyond any given administration and require decades to fall into 'disuse' through non-enforcement

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that for the courts to strike down these laws, it will require the legislature or executive to get the ball rolling. At least, if we are to see resolution in our lifetimes, as activist organizations pushing court cases from the bottom up are far too slow and weak to accomplish the type of ruling we seek. Now, a president or congress forcing the issue, delivering it immediately to SCOTUS' doorstep for urgent review & clarification, stands a far greater chance of actually counting for something. Even a strongly favorable SCOTUS ruling without executive/legal backing is likely to have little to no effect within a generation (see: Heller). Laws passed by congress then enforced repeatedly by the executive is how that backing manifests as policy. Good or bad, that's how intractable issues ultimately get settled in this country.

TCB

 

[Dog Soldier]

I should go back to high school and take my American history over. Most of the Constitutional Repair Kits posted here, I never heard of? Yes, I should have paid attention.

 

[barnbwt]

Constitutional Repair Kits

That would be the Article V convention for the proposal & ratification of amendments.

TCB

 

[MartinS]

Those who appeal unto Caesar should be ready to greet a Legion.

 

[Old Dog]

Ah, so wise, so pithy, so very concise ... and yet, so meaningless and clearly falling into the realm of hyperbole.

Most of the rest of us here live in America. Quite possibly, if we cannot expect our federal government -- all three branches if necessary -- to occasionally step in to ensure our Constitution and its amendments are protected and remain meaningful in all of the states, perhaps it's time to look for a new form of government.

Those that expect the states to get together and hammer out nationwide reciprocity on their own might also be entering the realm of delusion.

 

[buck460XVR]

I've said it many times but the rules applied to "voting rights" should be applied to gun rights!

I have to register in order to vote. Does that mean you want me to have to register before I can own firearms?

The biggest barrier to having reciprocity between states recognizing the right to carry concealed is the big difference in how states issue CWC permits. Some states require no license to CWC, some states don't even require that you know how to shoot a gun before they grant you a license and the rest run the gambit between minimal basic training to a more structured training. Until states have similar requirements for licensing(like driver's licenses), I don't see reciprocity happening. As for a Federal Mandate giving a blanketed "constitutional carry" permit without any requirements of age and/or training, I don't see that happening either. What I do see is a Federal mandate for states to have similar requirements and licensing which will make reciprocity feasible and realistic, even in states like Korneyforney.