Vitter To Introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity

[markk]

Do you really think that states will eliminate their existing CC laws just to avoid compliance with or protest this law?

 

[TAB]

I beleave CA would( or atleast try, I'm sure others would fallow), I also beleave that states that are "on the fence" about it, a bill like this would give people opposing CCW in that state more ammo to fight it with.

 

[44Brent]

I support this bill. It is my opinion that the arguments presented against this bill are just plain ridiculous and based on unfounded assumptions.

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

Besides would you want some one driving in your state with an out of state DL, where all they did was pass a back ground check and pay a fee?

Controlling a 2 ton vehicle moving at 30+ mph is alot different than carrying a holstered firearm.

 

[mblat]

It isn't exactly new thing, right? IIRC he has done it for the last five or size years?
With Pelocy at the helm this thing will never see the floor vote.....

 

[M203Sniper]

"Besides would you want some one driving in your state with an out of state DL, where all they did was pass a back ground check and pay a fee?"


I didn't pass any check. I just paid a fee. I have no problem with an American citizen driving through all 48 states without presenting papers or passports. The same as it should be for firearms under the second amendment. NO state has the right to stop you from Keeping (owning) arms or Bearing (wearing) them.

ANY such law is a violation of the Constitution. Interstate Commerce may apply to where it can stop FELONS from purchasing a firearm. That is the only LEGAL form of gun control there is; everything else is an infringement on your rights.


( yeah I know it's a broad brush, it's how I paint )

 

[TAB]

The same as it should be for firearms under the second amendment. NO state has the right to stop you from Keeping (owning) arms or Bearing (wearing) them.

but this is law has nothing to do with having a firearm or even "wearing" a firearm... it has every thing to do with how you "wear" that firearm.

Just a FYI, infrigment of a right means not allowing you to express that right. Making you jump thru a hoop to do so is not an infrigment.( there is case law on this a mile high)

 

[Kharn]

I've gotten kind of annoyed over the last several years that the good pro-gun bills are only submitted when the party that is commonly believed to be pro-gun is in the minority. But we might as well try to get somewhere...

Kharn

 

[M203Sniper]

Just a FYI, infrigment of a right means not allowing you to express that right. Making you jump thru a hoop to do so is not an infrigment.( there is case law on this a mile high)

It is not a violation of my 2A rights it is an encroachment, a trespass and an infringment.

It is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[TAB]

now state a court case that says that.

 

[M203Sniper]

Happily...

There were few, if any, gun control laws on the books until after the Civil War. (The few state attempts at firearm regulation had been almost without exception overturned by state courts that considered them in violation of the Second Amendment, which they considered to apply to the states as well as to the federal government!)
Then, suddenly, the Bill of Rights seemed to apply only to the federal government, and every Southern state had a law prohibiting newly-freed slaves from owning guns. (Guess why? It was getting damned dangerous for the Klansmen to lynch blacks.) The Fourteenth Amendment rendered those "Black Codes" unconstitutional, so the Southerners figured out some backdoor methods. One was banning cheap guns (the term Saturday Night Special has its origin in the racial slur "***** Saturday Night," which was similar to "Father's Day in Harlem" or "Chinese Fire Drill.") Another was a permit system/waiting period/ background check, requiring approval of the sheriff, who usually just happened to be a Klansman.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). In Louisiana, a hundred or so good old boys got word that there were some "uppity *****" having an organizational meeting, to try to protect themselves against constant attacks by white gangs. The good old boys got together and crashed the party. They took away the Negroes' guns, and then proceeded to murder them. They were charged with conspiring to deprive their victims of their constitutional rights to assemble, and to bear arms. The court ruled that (1) the First and Second Amendments did not apply to the states, (2) the Fourteenth Amendment only prohibited the State from depriving the people of their rights, and the good old boys were not agents of the State, and (3) the controlling Enforcement Acts protected only those rights "granted by the Constitution." The court said that the rights to assemble and to bear arms were fundamental rights. They were not "granted" by the Constitution, but were inalienable;
they were rights with which the victims were "endowed by their Creator." Therefore, the rights were not protected by the Enforcement Acts, and the KKK boys literally got away with murder! (This is a case proudly cited by many people who call themselves "liberals," instead of the racists they really are.)

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Presser had organized a society of German immigrants ("Lehr und Wehr Verein") who believed that regular military drill was an important part of good citizenship. Four hundred of them paraded through downtown Chicago, carrying rifles. Presser was charged with parading without a license, and organizing and maintaining a private army. He claimed that the Illinois statutes violated his rights under the First Amendment (freedom of assembly) and the Second Amendment (right to bear arms).

The court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to the States, and that any State could prohibit free speech, free exercise of religion, assembly, bearing of arms, etc. (I wonder how the A.C.L.U., the American Nazis, and the citizens of the Chicago suburb of Skokie would react to this sort of ruling today. Come to think of it, that would also mean that each state sould have its own established religion!) Also, in Presser the Court never mentioned the individual right to bear arms; the case dealt only with an maintaining an armed organization.

Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). Texas had a law forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing arrest without warrant for any violation. Miller claimed this violated the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment. The Court again ruled that "the restrictions of this amendments operate only upon the Federal power." But they admitted that it was possible that the Fourteenth Amendment might cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the States as well. However, Miller did not raise his objection early enough. "If the Fourteenth Amendment limited the power of the States as to such rights . . . we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court." Id. at 538.

Subsequent to Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller v. Texas, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does in fact cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the States. In effect, those three cases have been invalidated. To believe otherwise is to believe that the States can restrict religion, speech, and assembly, to execute unreasonable searches and seizures, to deny jury trials, or to infringe the right to bear arms.

An important note: the Court never doubted for an instant that the right to bear arms was not an individual right which the Federal government could not infringe. These cases never talked about the Second Amendment being a right of states to organize militias. It has always been assumed that the right to bear arms is a right of individual citizens to bear arms. Perhaps the Supreme Court's most infamous decision was Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). Chief Justice Taney said that Negroes could not be "citizens," because if they were, they would have the right to vote, to assemble, to speak on political subjects, to travel freely, and "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Id. at 417. Taney, the classic racist, found that prospect inconceivable. It is noteworthy, though, that the Supreme Court considered the right to carry guns wherever they go an individual right of every citizen, along with voting, speaking, assembling. "Nor can Congress deny the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself..." Id. at 450. Obviously, "the people" refers to all citizens, not the states or militia, or the rest of the sentence becomes meaningless. See Verdugo-Urquidez, supra.

What the Second Amendment protects is an individual right to bear military weapons, not for hunting, not for target shooting, not for repelling foreign invaders, but for the purpose of preventing oppression of the people by their own government. The historical, textual, structural, doctrinal, prudential, judicial, and legislative evidence is devastating. Any intelligent person who wishes to study the matter seriously should probably begin with S. Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637. Professor Levinson (University of Texas) is a devout liberal who set out to prove once and for all that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right (etc., ad nauseam). To his great embarrassment (hence the title), he found overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He had the academic integrity to admit it, for which he deserves great admiration. He does not like gun ownership, any more than some people like flag-burning or organized religion, but he recognizes that the individual right exists, and is integral to our constitutional protections, whether one likes it or not.

http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/kates.html

 

[TAB]

Your assuming you have a right to own a firearm...

 

[M203Sniper]

You may also reference;

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfou.html

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowcons.html

Scott v. Sandford[141] opines that privileges and immunities of free men include the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went,"[142] (p.79)and the rights Congress cannot deny include "the right to keep and bear arms."[143] The fourteenth amendment was intended to extend the rights enunciated in Scott to all persons and to prevent such rights from being infringed by the states.[144] This historical reason, plus the decision of 43 states to adopt an arms guarantee, supports the view that the second amendment should be binding on the states. It has been firmly established in our concept of "liberty" under the due process clause.[145]

Although the second amendment has not yet been held to be binding on the states, state guarantees to arms offer the most promise in protecting individual liberty because numerous state courts have taken the right seriously and have strived to achieve a workable balance between a right and the needs of the state. State courts have on at least 20 reported occasions found arms laws to be unconstitutional.[146] This once again demonstrates that the federal Bill of Rights serves as a floor and not as a ceiling.[147]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Prior to the adoption of this Amendment, the Bill of Rights had been held by the Supreme Court to not apply to the States.[9] While many states modeled their constitutions and laws after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. According to some commentators, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect in the Bill of Rights and in other constitutional provisions

 

[M203Sniper]

Your assuming you have a right to own a firearm...

The words your looking for are

"Keep and Bear"

which I read as own and wear. Yes I do have that right.

 

[markk]

Your assuming you have a right to own a firearm...

There you go again...

 

[hugh damright]

The fourteenth amendment was intended to extend the rights enunciated in Scott to all persons

The 14th was needed to make the civil rights bill part of the constitution (because the civil rights bill would have been repealed once the South had representation) ... and this bill enumerated the privileges and immunities as the right:

"to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property"

The civil rights bill did not include the right to carry arms in its enumeration. If it had, then I think it would be convincing evidence that the 14th's privileges and immunities include the right to carry arms. But I do not see how the dicta in Scott v Sandford is as convincing.

I have been confused this week about Dred Scott ... on the one hand, IIRC, Taney described the P&I of US citizens, but where did he get such a concept? Of course, Article IV, Section 2 says that citizens of each State hall have the P&I of citizens in the several States ... but I understand this to mean that citizens of other States can come to Virginia and have the same P&I as Virginians ... was Taney seeing this as meaning that people in every State have the same P&I, and isn't that a misconstruction?

 

[TAB]

which I read as own and wear.

when your appointed to the SC... then your IMO will matter...


I'm just pointing out reality here,nothing more.

 

[drmiler]

Blah, Blah, Blah

Tab you have done NOTHING except present your own skewed opinions!
You really should read up on current supreme court decisions.

(quote)
TAB
Senior Member



Join Date: 12-18-07
Posts: 1,022 Quote:
which I read as own and wear.

when your appointed to the SC... then your IMO will matter...


I'm just pointing out reality here,nothing more.

 

[wuluf]

I'm happy to support a bill like this and happy to email my two senators, Boxer and Feinstein...sigh.

 

[machinisttx]

Do you really think that states will eliminate their existing CC laws just to avoid compliance with or protest this law?

I hope they do. This is a state issue, not a federal one.

I do so love the hypocrisy. Folks on gun forums always cry and whine about the gubbermint being involved in x or y, but when it comes to something they want, the cry and whine goes the opposite direction.

LESS government is the answer...

 

[Kharn]

machinisttx:
I think its an either/or situation.
I want Vermont carry all over the country, but if I cant have that, I'd settle for nationwide reciprocity.

Kharn

 

[M203Sniper]

I hope they do. This is a state issue, not a federal one.

I do so love the hypocrisy. Folks on gun forums always cry and whine about the gubbermint being involved in x or y, but when it comes to something they want, the cry and whine goes the opposite direction.

LESS government is the answer...

Taking the ability to Limit freedoms from the states IS less government.

 

[hugh damright]

Taking the ability to Limit freedoms from the states IS less government.

That doesn't sound right to me. First off, a free State must have the ability to limit freedoms ... we may as well say that taking away the States' ability to legislate would result in smaller government. Further, it seems to imply that if the feds assume undelegated powers and force reform on the States then the result is less or smaller government ... I think that approach is failing. I don't see how taking the ability to limit freedoms from the States AND GIVING IT TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT results in less government. Isn't the US founded upon the notion that the way to have small government is to leave the ability to limit freedoms to each State?

 

[machinisttx]

Taking the ability to Limit freedoms from the states IS less government.

No, it's more FEDERAL power. You fail. Every single time the fed gets involved with something it just gets more ****** up. Take government out of it entirely--especially the fed.

There are few things 2A related that I won't argue for. The ones that I won't are generally somehow an increase in federal power.

I guess I need to write/call my congresscritters and give them my opinion.

 

[markk]

Bumped