CoalTrain49
Member
I think eventually we will get to Constitutional Carry (CC) in most states the same way we got to Shall Issue. I don't think it will be through congress as many might think. The district courts and SC has mostly upheld shall issue and will in time uphold CC also. A restrictive state like CA who was just recently mandated by 9th DC to facilitate shall issue will go kicking and screaming and will need another little push from the SC.
I'm not sure what you mean by "extended". There is really only three ways CC could happen.
Congress, the SC or state legislation. I suppose the prez could issue an executive order but it wouldn't be this prez.
Congress won't touch it because of the political divide. They can't even get a budget passed which is a little more important to national defense and my pay check than CC. There's also this little matter of states rights that is sure to torpedo any attempt by congress.
So far the liberal SC hasn't indicated they would rule against states rights to define how we carry, only that we can.
The only practical way to get it is through state legislation, which is what is happening. Some responsible states have already figured out that it's a financial burden to administer and it's the only responsible thing to do. CA is a good example of a state that hasn't been responsible and has 400 B worth of debt. The fed gov't is another example of that. Funny how that mind set will put you in a very deep hole.
Why should a state care how we carry? I can see why they don't want certain people to carry but the law is already pretty clear about that. They aren't going to keep criminals from carrying anyway and most LEO's know that. The state has NO pre liability in the matter of criminals using guns to commit crimes, only to arrest, prosecute and sentence those criminals who do.
So it gets down to who's paying for permits. If people tell their reps they don't want to pay for it anymore it will go away. The funny part of all of this is the state is trying to pass off the cost of permits to those who want to carry as a user fee while the people that want permits in place aren't going to pay a dime for one because they don't carry. I don't think the toll road mind set will hold up given the fact that the state has no legal obligation to maintain a permit system. It isn't a highway system and they don't get federal funds to do it.
When a lawsuit is brought to the state SC, district, and on to fed SC that shows that the financial burden of permits is unconstitutional then we will see some changes at the state level.
I'm not sure what you mean by "extended". There is really only three ways CC could happen.
Congress, the SC or state legislation. I suppose the prez could issue an executive order but it wouldn't be this prez.
Congress won't touch it because of the political divide. They can't even get a budget passed which is a little more important to national defense and my pay check than CC. There's also this little matter of states rights that is sure to torpedo any attempt by congress.
So far the liberal SC hasn't indicated they would rule against states rights to define how we carry, only that we can.
The only practical way to get it is through state legislation, which is what is happening. Some responsible states have already figured out that it's a financial burden to administer and it's the only responsible thing to do. CA is a good example of a state that hasn't been responsible and has 400 B worth of debt. The fed gov't is another example of that. Funny how that mind set will put you in a very deep hole.
Why should a state care how we carry? I can see why they don't want certain people to carry but the law is already pretty clear about that. They aren't going to keep criminals from carrying anyway and most LEO's know that. The state has NO pre liability in the matter of criminals using guns to commit crimes, only to arrest, prosecute and sentence those criminals who do.
So it gets down to who's paying for permits. If people tell their reps they don't want to pay for it anymore it will go away. The funny part of all of this is the state is trying to pass off the cost of permits to those who want to carry as a user fee while the people that want permits in place aren't going to pay a dime for one because they don't carry. I don't think the toll road mind set will hold up given the fact that the state has no legal obligation to maintain a permit system. It isn't a highway system and they don't get federal funds to do it.
When a lawsuit is brought to the state SC, district, and on to fed SC that shows that the financial burden of permits is unconstitutional then we will see some changes at the state level.
Last edited: