The “Reciprocal Conceal Carry” Act. S. 845

[meytind]

Found this pre-written letter on gunowners.org:

Dear Senator:

Please support the Thune/Vitter amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. This amendment will protect the right of citizens to carry firearms outside of their home state without violating the rights of the other states. Thus, the reciprocity language masterfully protects the principle of federalism while also promoting Second Amendment rights.

A person's right to defend himself and his family should not end at the border of his state.

I urge you to vote for the Thune/Vitter concealed carry amendment and to oppose any modifying actions that seek to weaken their amendment.

Sincerely,

Send it to all your senators.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The bottom line is that we both want to carry our arms everywhere we go, state to state, town to town. My way of bringing it about is constitutional, is the way it is supposed to be - unfettered.

As an ideal this is fine, as long as you recognize that it's simply not going to happen. There is a long history of suppressing the unfettered right to carry concealed in this country, so a new understanding of such a right, that has been routinely breached, would have to disavow that history. (The Earps in Dodge City, for instance.) That's about as likely as the sun rising in the West.

That said, it's certainly possible to expand reciprocity so that a CCW in one state is recognized by almost all other states (say over 75%). If federalism acts as a brake to that expansion, it also acts as a brake to contraction. It's possible to pose a reasonable argument to the voting populations of most states to favor reciprocity agreements, even without establishing a universal standard (for instance, by mixing and aggregating resident and not resident permits, even if the states aren't individually reciprocated).

Classical liberal ideals don't guarantee a perfect world, or even a consistently just world. They merely guarantee that we tend to move in the right general direction, in the long run. It's the worst possible system, except for everything else.

It is just as simple for Congress to pass law with their power in the Fourteenth Amendment to order the states to cease and desist infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Congress already used this power to stop the frivolous law suits against the gun industry.

Congress can also tell the states that infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be used as a measure to control or attempt to prevent crime. There are better ways to prevent the use of firearms by dangerous individuals such as death, incarceration, institutionalization, and guardianship.

It isn't "ideal", it's common sense. Saying it's simply not going to happen is to give up before you even try, or to fall in line and agree with the anti-gun-rights crowd, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein , et al.

Congress does not need to "recognize" an authority none of the several states have under the Second Amendment and further enhanced by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Don't tell me it can't be done or won't be done - unless you are on the side of the anti-gun-rights, Second-Amendment-be-damed crowd.

Woody

 

[C. Rabbit]

Don't tell me it can't be done or won't be done - unless you are on the side of the anti-gun-rights, Second-Amendment-be-damed crowd.

Getting congress to force the states to allow unfettered concealed carry in the way you propose will not be done and can not be done.

It is a political impossibility. Whether it is theoretically possible is of no use. To me, because of the practical impossibility of your suggestion, trying to solve the issue your way is a waste of time.

You can write all you want about how it's the constitutionally pure way. It doesn't matter for anything other than academic arguing. I'm not anti-gun or anti-constitution or any other ridiculous charge. I am simply pro-results.

This bill represents the best shot at getting large scale CCW reciprocation. It's not perfect, but your ideal way would not happen in the foreseeable future.

As for the feds 'getting in'. This bill doesn't give them control, it simply makes CPLs like drivers licenses. They don't control the law, and wouldn't have any more control than they do now.

The Feds would not be able to do anything they can't do right now.

Remember - the perfect is the enemy of the good. This is good. Do not let striving for perfection lead you to destroy the good.

As for chances of passing - well who thought that National Parks carry would get passed?

CR

 

[AKElroy]

Would this fall in as an interstate commerce issue thereby making Federal Jurisdiction constitutional and thus forcing states to have reciprocity? In which case, why would it stop at only the states that currently allow CCW permits?...

Anything done federally can be undone just as easily. Right now, they have no jurisdiction to regulate intrastate carry laws. This could potentially create that opened door for bad actors down the line. I live in Texas, and the only states I am interested in visiting all have reciprocity with my CHL. This needs to stay a states rights issue. No feds, please.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Getting congress to force the states to allow unfettered concealed carry in the way you propose will not be done and can not be done.

Will not be done might be the case, but can not be done is just plain wrong. This currently proposed law would force the states to allow concealed carry, but my proposal wouldn't force the several states to do anything. It would prohibit the several states to infringe upon the right, therefore, there would be no need for concealed carry laws. "Incorporation" would basically do the same thing I propose, except it would be accomplished by the Court instead of how it should be done through the actual, real, honest-to-goodness, can't be misconstrued power granted to Congress in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

As for the feds 'getting in'. This bill doesn't give them control, it simply makes CPLs like drivers licenses. They don't control the law, and wouldn't have any more control than they do now.

Fed control or no makes no difference. The problem is the recognition by the Feds of the current unconstitutional laws in the several states; the laws that force us to get a permit in the first place. Fed recognition means it's now tougher to unfetter the right. Sorry if it seems futile to you, but I'll not stop the charge. Someone must speak up of how it's supposed to be. Someone must stand up for the Constitution and our God given, inherent, inalienable rights. Fortunately, I'm just one of many.

Woody

 

[mblat]

Fed control or no makes no difference. The problem is the recognition by the Feds of the current unconstitutional laws in the several states; the laws that force us to get a permit in the first place. Fed recognition means it's now tougher to unfetter the right. Sorry if it seems futile to you, but I'll not stop the charge. Someone must speak up of how it's supposed to be. Someone must stand up for the Constitution and our God given, inherent, inalienable rights. Fortunately, I'm just one of many.

Woody

With all due respect concealed carry has been regulated nearly from the moment this country was created.
If nothing else SCOTUS hinted that regulation and even outright prohibition of CC is constitutional.
Just because we want CC be a right it doesn't mean it is. <shrugs> This is good bill. I am from California - so it won't help me in any way.... but it is still good bill.

 

[AKElroy]

Someone must stand up for the Constitution and our God given, inherent, inalienable rights. Fortunately, I'm just one of many.

Well said. Maybe one day I will be able to express it as well as you, my friend. Keep up the good work---

Lance

 

[TAB]

so let me get this strait... its ok to support one amendment, by throwing another under the bus?

that is what this bill does.

lets just say for the sake of argument, this bill passes. The ink will not even be dry on Obamas sig before several states take it to court. heller was a 5-4 split, what do you think the odds of it standing up in court will be?

if its struct down, we now have case law against any other simlar laws saying they are no good.

if its upheld, we just threw out the 10a.

 

[mblat]

so let me get this strait... its ok to support one amendment, by throwing another under the bus?

that is what this bill does.

lets just say for the sake of argument, this bill passes. The ink will not even be dry on Obamas sig before several states take it to court. heller was a 5-4 split, what do you think the odds of it standing up in court will be?

if its struct down, we now have case law against any other simlar laws saying they are no good.

if its upheld, we just threw out the 10a.

Shrugs - this is patently wrong. If there is any issue that can be matter of interstate commence this is the one.
It is no different that making everybody recognize marriage licenses. You are not trying to tell me that when that happened it somehow killed 10A?

As far as SCOTUS.... hmmm..... I would think that this will be better than 5-4. After all this is clearly interstate issue and congress has power regulate it. We may not like it.... but it does.....

 

[C. Rabbit]

This currently proposed law would force the states to allow concealed carry, but my proposal wouldn't force the several states to do anything. It would prohibit the several states to infringe upon the right, therefore, there would be no need for concealed carry laws.

It seems to me that your proposal would simply force them not to have any laws against concealed carry.

The problem is the recognition by the Feds of the current unconstitutional laws in the several states; the laws that force us to get a permit in the first place. Fed recognition means it's now tougher to unfetter the right.

I'd like to have Vermont/Alaska style carry nationwide. I think it is right. But the SCOTUS will approve current shall issue CCW laws as constitutional.
I don't think this law will do much to make it more difficult to change one state's laws to Vermont/Alaska style carry. I don't really see the reasoning behind that. Will state legislators say they only resist changing the law to V/A carry because of this bill?

Sorry if it seems futile to you, but I'll not stop the charge. Someone must speak up of how it's supposed to be.

It seems worse than futile. Like I said, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I believe this bill would help us, and greatly enhance our rights. I think there is little practical value to be gained if it does not pass. I believe, therefore, that opposing this is a net loss.

Right now, they have no jurisdiction to regulate intrastate carry laws

They won't have any more after the passage of this bill.

if its upheld, we just threw out the 10a.

1) I must disagree - from the 14th Congress has the power to enforce the rights of citizens against the states. 2) What's left of the 10th to throw out anyway?

Now, this bill would be an excellent way to ram some freedom into the faces of people who run states like New Jersey. Yes, Federal laws have caused great pain in the past. But that doesn't mean all will. This is a chance to make an enormous stride for freedom, by making nationwide reciprocation of CPLs a reality. We shouldn't hesitate from paranoia. If there is a danger in this bill, I'd heed the warnings, but general statements about "the fed" don't convince me.

CR

 

[TAB]

It is no different that making everybody recognize marriage licenses

there is federal law that states do not have to take gay or common law marrages from other states. when it comes to taxs, they are not counted on the federal level. so thats a really bad example

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Shrugs - this is patently wrong. If there is any issue that can be matter of interstate commence this is the one.

You assume the current uses of the Commerce Clause are constitutional.

It is no different that making everybody recognize marriage licenses.

Marriage licenses are covered under Article IV, Section 1, a specific power granted to Congress. It's constitutional. Marriage comes under the heading of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. This says nothing about laws. Laws prohibit things.

You are not trying to tell me that when that happened it somehow killed 10A?

A power granted to Congress such as in Article IV, Section 1, would be a power delegated to the Union by the Constitution. Since it's not a power not delegated to the Union, it is not a power reserved to the states or to the people.

Don't forget that the Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. All that needs to be done is abide the Constitution and you can carry wherever you go. See how simple it is?

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

With all due respect concealed carry has been regulated nearly from the moment this country was created.

And how does this make it constitutional?

If nothing else SCOTUS hinted that regulation and even outright prohibition of CC is constitutional.

Example?

Just because we want CC be a right it doesn't mean it is.

It IS a right. "Carry" makes no distinction between open, concealed, drug behind you on a string, pushed in front of you in a wheelbarrow, or as a hood ornament on your vehicle.

Woody

 

[xorbe]

Well it doesn't help Californians anyways, since we can't reasonably get CCW permit in the first place, unless I'm missing something here ...

 

[mblat]

Originally Posted by mblat
With all due respect concealed carry has been regulated nearly from the moment this country was created.
And how does this make it constitutional?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
If nothing else SCOTUS hinted that regulation and even outright prohibition of CC is constitutional.
Example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
Just because we want CC be a right it doesn't mean it is.
It IS a right. "Carry" makes no distinction between open, concealed, drug behind you on a string, pushed in front of you in a wheelbarrow, or as a hood ornament on your vehicle.

Woody
ConstitutionCowboy is offline

When courts looking what is constitutional historical precedent (on how thgis particular rule was interpreted) plays no small role. So, while historical precedent not necessarily deciding factor it isn't small one either.
As far as an example of SCOTUS implying that regulation of CC is constitutional - just read Heller - it is there..
And lastly. Every right ( and I admit I should've phrased it more accuratly ) is subject to regulation. For example - you right to gather for political rally doesn't prevent a city to require you obtain the permit for hold one. Or require that you hold it in certain place at certain time......
Same with "Carry". Word "Carry" seems to give you right to carry ( huh ), however it doesn't mean that CC HAS to be legal. It seems that as long as some form functional carry is allowed ( meaning carrying loaded gun ) in some manner ( open carry, for example ) all other modes of carry can be forbidden. I may not like it. I would LOVE Alaska/Vermont style carry. And I think most of us agree that CC is more practical than open carry, for many reasons.
But I think that in this particular case you reading something in the Constitution that isn't there.

Besides. Short of civil war Constitution says only what SCOTUS decides it says.

Well it doesn't help Californians anyways, since we can't reasonably get CCW permit in the first place, unless I'm missing something here ...

It helps future federal lawsuit on the subject.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

As far as an example of SCOTUS implying that regulation of CC is constitutional - just read Heller - it is there..

What the Supreme Court really said in DC v. Heller:

In DC v. Heller. at 54, Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

This excerpt contains "purpose" which the Second Amendment does not protect. It is also pertinent to note that it doesn't make much difference whether the right secured by the Second Amendment should be unlimited or not. The Founding Fathers secured the right as if it is unlimited. I, for one, believe it is unlimited as did the Founding Fathers. How else could We the People grant unlimited power to the Union to defend us if we didn't have that unlimited power ourselves?

Further along at 54 and 55, Scalia wrote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

(Note the footnote #26 which we'll get to in a minute.) Scalia did not say all the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are sacrosanct or are "reasonable restrictions". He wrote that they didn't do a complete analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment and could not say those "restrictions" were in doubt without a complete analysis. He left it wide open for a future analysis to make such a definitive call. All he said was that such a call wasn't made in this deliberation(DC v. Heller).

Now I'll address Footnote 26 in which Scalia wrote:

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

What can we glean from this? That his list of restrictions was incomplete? Yes, but more important is the inclusion of the phrase "presumptively lawful". The opinion of the Court is only PRESUMING these regulatory measures("reasonable restrictions") are constitutional. That's twice Scalia made that point. This is the Court passing the buck on to the next case to come along that would address the issue of the constitutionality of all of these presumptively - for the time being - lawful regulatory measures.

There is a reason the issue of these presumptively lawful regulatory measures was not addressed. My guess would be to secure a fifth concurrence, and I would further guess that the fifth concurrence would be that of Justice Kennedy.

It can be said of Justice Antonin Scalia that he artfully crafted the majority opinion in DC v. Heller and secured the fact that the Second Amendment protects a right of the individual, and made it clear that this is just the beginning of the denouement.​

There is no lock on "reasonable restrictions" in DC v. Heller

Every right ( and I admit I should've phrased it more accuratly ) is subject to regulation. For example - you right to gather for political rally doesn't prevent a city to require you obtain the permit for hold one.

Your example proves my point. The right to assemble is subject to some regulation in that the right is to peaceably assemble. Law can be written to ensure that, though law cannot be written to prohibit peaceable assembly. There is no provision, exception, or qualifier in the Second Amendment that would allow any regulation of the RKBA. The Second Amendment is different from all the other amendments in that it provides absolute protection of the right.

Same with "Carry". Word "Carry" seems to give you right to carry ( huh ), however it doesn't mean that CC HAS to be legal. It seems that as long as some form functional carry is allowed ( meaning carrying loaded gun ) in some manner ( open carry, for example ) all other modes of carry can be forbidden.

I can't even say, "Nice try," on this one. That line of illogic is old and easily refuted. You see, it isn't that as long as a certain amount of exercise of the right is allowed makes it OK for prohibitions to exist on other aspects of the right. It's that the right is not to be infringed by government. It isn't about what the government allows, it's about what the government is forbidden to infringe upon. Government can't "allow" something it hasn't the power to govern in the first place.

But I think that in this particular case you reading something in the Constitution that isn't there.

Vise Versa.

... Constitution says only what SCOTUS decides it says.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the Court has such power?

Anyway, don't say it can't be done. Alaska and Vermont already have uninfringed carry. It causes no problems. I can go either place and carry open or concealed without a license.

Woody

 

[MT GUNNY]

Lone Gunman Quote; Zero, no chance at all it will pass. It is a waste of time and money. Anti-gun people will not support it, and half the pro-gun people will not.

What ever you Think about the Bill, It prolly Will pass. 1. Since When has any Anti Gun Supporter Ever supported a Pro gun Bill? 2. our Elected Reps have Been Trained Buy Us To Vote For Pro gun Legislation. They Will see this as a Pro Gun Bill and Vote Accordingly, not Wanting to be Fired by there Constituents.

 

[BettyFM]

Concealed Carry and purchase

Does this bill or any reciprocity laws currently extent have any effect on the ability to purchase a handgun in a state in which I don't live? In other words, if I have a Texas permit can I purchase a handgun in Minnesota (for example), since Minnesota recognizes the Texas concealed permit?

 

[RickTee]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government".....Thomas Jefferson. So why does Government want our guns? Isn't this just another means of getting at them, no matter how good it may seem?

 

[RickTee]

As I understand the reciprocity agreement the answer is yes; however local law prevails.

 

[RickTee]

HTH

<http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html>

Alaska has one restriction, see item one.

Vermont is a non-licensing state thus Vermonters do not have reciprocity in FL, yet any one can carry there.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

ANY infringement, no matter how beneficent it may appear, is an opening to any not-so-beneficent camel's nose.

Woody

 

[mblat]

What the Supreme Court really said in DC v. Heller:

In DC v. Heller. at 54, Scalia wrote:

Quote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
This excerpt contains "purpose" which the Second Amendment does not protect. It is also pertinent to note that it doesn't make much difference whether the right secured by the Second Amendment should be unlimited or not. The Founding Fathers secured the right as if it is unlimited. I, for one, believe it is unlimited as did the Founding Fathers. How else could We the People grant unlimited power to the Union to defend us if we didn't have that unlimited power ourselves?

Further along at 54 and 55, Scalia wrote:

Quote:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
(Note the footnote #26 which we'll get to in a minute.) Scalia did not say all the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are sacrosanct or are "reasonable restrictions". He wrote that they didn't do a complete analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment and could not say those "restrictions" were in doubt without a complete analysis. He left it wide open for a future analysis to make such a definitive call. All he said was that such a call wasn't made in this deliberation(DC v. Heller).

Now I'll address Footnote 26 in which Scalia wrote:

Quote:
26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
What can we glean from this? That his list of restrictions was incomplete? Yes, but more important is the inclusion of the phrase "presumptively lawful". The opinion of the Court is only PRESUMING these regulatory measures("reasonable restrictions") are constitutional. That's twice Scalia made that point. This is the Court passing the buck on to the next case to come along that would address the issue of the constitutionality of all of these presumptively - for the time being - lawful regulatory measures.

There is a reason the issue of these presumptively lawful regulatory measures was not addressed. My guess would be to secure a fifth concurrence, and I would further guess that the fifth concurrence would be that of Justice Kennedy.

It can be said of Justice Antonin Scalia that he artfully crafted the majority opinion in DC v. Heller and secured the fact that the Second Amendment protects a right of the individual, and made it clear that this is just the beginning of the denouement.

There is no lock on "reasonable restrictions" in DC v. Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
Every right ( and I admit I should've phrased it more accuratly ) is subject to regulation. For example - you right to gather for political rally doesn't prevent a city to require you obtain the permit for hold one.
Your example proves my point. The right to assemble is subject to some regulation in that the right is to peaceably assemble. Law can be written to ensure that, though law cannot be written to prohibit peaceable assembly. There is no provision, exception, or qualifier in the Second Amendment that would allow any regulation of the RKBA. The Second Amendment is different from all the other amendments in that it provides absolute protection of the right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
Same with "Carry". Word "Carry" seems to give you right to carry ( huh ), however it doesn't mean that CC HAS to be legal. It seems that as long as some form functional carry is allowed ( meaning carrying loaded gun ) in some manner ( open carry, for example ) all other modes of carry can be forbidden.
I can't even say, "Nice try," on this one. That line of illogic is old and easily refuted. You see, it isn't that as long as a certain amount of exercise of the right is allowed makes it OK for prohibitions to exist on other aspects of the right. It's that the right is not to be infringed by government. It isn't about what the government allows, it's about what the government is forbidden to infringe upon. Government can't "allow" something it hasn't the power to govern in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
But I think that in this particular case you reading something in the Constitution that isn't there.
Vise Versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mblat
... Constitution says only what SCOTUS decides it says.
Where does it say in the Constitution that the Court has such power?

Anyway, don't say it can't be done. Alaska and Vermont already have uninfringed carry. It causes no problems. I can go either place and carry open or concealed without a license.

Woody

It is interesting how two people can read the same text and see what it said so differently. Scalia reffered in Heller that prohibitions to CC has survived constitutional challenges in the past. HE didn't mentioned that he disagrees with that. After Heller, It is open to argue that the right to carry either open or concealed (depending on local law) is entitled to constitutional protection. But while you can argue that you entitled to both - there is no indication what so ever that courts will be agreeable.
But we will have to agree to disagree on that.

Couple more points. With all due respect. I said "short of civil war Constitution says what SCOTUS decides." As any one-liner it is clear exaggeration, however from practical point of view it is absolutely correct. It isn't that difficult to imagine that SCOTUS rules 5-4 against Heller.
Congress wouldn't be talking about national CCW right now. They would be talking "on what date all AW have to be registered". And whatever my and your opinion on the subject is - we would either had to register it, become felons or start shooting at G-man. So, one more time: "Short of civil war Constitution says what SCOTUS decides."

Lastly. For each Vermont there is a New York and for each Alaska there is a California. There is NO WAY IN HELL Chicago will have shall issue policy without Feds making them to have it.

So..... whatever happy place you are living in..... seriously..... this is civil rights issue and history of this country proves that in many places civil right get respected only after Feds come at locals like ton of bricks. As far as that goes - nothing changes in the last fifty years.

 

[ThrottleJockey72]

From post#36

It actually is an incredibly simple bill. A good bill IMHO. One with no federal oversight or "standardization"

Yes and no. How will NY work? NY law requires the serial number of any gun you are carrying to be printed on the permit. Since no other state does this, no residents of any other state can abide by their law. And then there are states like MN that don't have "Concealed Carry Permits" per say, but rather have a "Permit to Carry a Pistol", or IN with their "personal protection permit". I know it is nit picking, but rest assured some states will try to play the word game. Then we have "may issue" states like HI, is it right to let me carry there, but only 2-3 actual residents are afforded the ability to do so? I agree it is a good, simple bill, however the wording does need to be adjusted a bit.