CCW National Reciprocity

[Hugh Damright]

Suppose we federalize CCW and the friendly, friendly federal government frees us all from the tyranny of State CCW laws. Then suppose in twenty years we have Schumer and Boxer in the white house and rabid anti-gun dems control every branch of US government. If they decide to ban CCW in every State, can we claim they haven't the authority? Aren't we trying to give them that very authority?

 

[LAK]

Shaggy

As long as the federal legislation does not require any expenditure from the states in following the federal legislation (as was the problem in Printz), the feds can compel the states to, at a minimum, recognize a federal standard. That federal standard can be the home state standard for a resident of any of the 50 states. IOW, like the recently passed law that provides national carry for LEOs, the feds can compel a state to recognize a lawful CCW of another. Make no mistake, however, this would not be a matter of the FF&C clause as the 2nd Amendment is not considered to be a "fundamental right", but rather a matter of protecting interstate commerce. The regulation of interstate commerce is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction. By recognizing the lawful carry of arms by law abiding citizens helps promote and protect interstate commerce, the feds can prohibit that states from interfering in interstate commerce by refusing to recognize the lawful CCW of another state.

Shaggy,

The term "Federal standard" can not be applied as a means to circumvent State constitutions and penal codes etc.

The Federal government might get co-operation such that concealed carry permits be "standardized" between the States that issue them - but it can not compel any State to allow citizens to carry a concealed handgun within a State's exclusive jurisdiction if it is contrary to the laws of that State.

The Federal government could allow, by the removal of any Federal legal or regulatory prohibitions, the wearing of handguns on any Federal property, or facility, where it exercizes exclusive or applicable partial jurisdiction. But it can not impose a change in the Criminal laws of any State by a mere Act of the Federal Congress.

And as if the commerce clause has not been perverted and bent beyond it's logical and reasonable purpose, attempting to apply it to this subject would be an equal legal perversion.

As much appeal as this has, it ammounts to turning our legal jurisprudence on it's head, as well as a blatant afront to the Constitution.

 

[HKGuns]

This thread is a great example of why gun rights are so easily trampled.

Keep arguing amongst yourselves.....When YOU SHOULD BE ON THE SAME SIDE. Instead you're too wrapped up arguing shades of the constitution and assocated ammendments!!

You can't see the forest for the trees! There is no way this can be bad legislation. Its aligning the states in a way that isn't possible or feasable by them each working individually, for the good of the country.

You don't need to take it any further.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

HK-
From what I see, everyone here is agreed that National CCW is a plus. The only question is whether it already exists; should be agreed among the states; or should be imposed by .gov.

Come to think of it; the only person who's opinion I can't ferret out is yours. Did you have something to add to the mix?
Rich

 

[tyme]

LAK, I have not read the bill, but it sounds like it does prohibit something, rather than allow something. It prohibits idiotic states from restricting the ccw rights of out-of-staters. It doesn't allow anything that the citizen's home state doesn't allow. If states began requiring non-residents to get special non-resident DLs before they could drive into the state, can you imagine how fast the Feds would pass something like this? The only snafu that may arise (and it may be dealt with in the bill... like I said, I haven't read it) is in standardizing locations that are off-limits for ccw.

Allowing something to the states disallows it to the people, and vice versa. There are plenty of laws that already "allow" something. Is the NFA scheme unconstitutional because it generally bans machineguns, then allows people to jump through certain hoops to buy them anyway?

it will further this idea that the Federal government can simply legislate State compliance on anything with Congressional consensus.

I agree that it's problematic, but I want nationwide ccw reciprocity and am willing to argue just about anything to support it.

If they decide to ban CCW in every State, can we claim they haven't the authority? Aren't we trying to give them that very authority?

They already have that authority if they have the votes. You think the SCOTUS is going to declare such legislation unconstitutional? I wouldn't bet on it. They have an out -- as long as the federal government doesn't ban open carry, they could claim that they're not really taking away anyone's right to bear arms.

 

[LAK]

tyme

LAK, I have not read the bill, but it sounds like it does prohibit something, rather than allow something. It prohibits idiotic states from restricting the ccw rights of out-of-staters. It doesn't allow anything that the citizen's home state doesn't allow. If states began requiring non-residents to get special non-resident DLs before they could drive into the state, can you imagine how fast the Feds would pass something like this? The only snafu that may arise (and it may be dealt with in the bill... like I said, I haven't read it) is in standardizing locations that are off-limits for ccw.

I have not read the bill either, but regardless of whether it is an "allow citizens" or "prohibit the States", the same applies. The Federal government by the simple Act of Congress can not prohibit the individual States from enforcing their own criminal law within their own exclusive jurisdictions.

The only proper procedure to remedy this would be the SCOTUS; a challenge by a citizen vs the State. A SCOTUS ruling would thus have legal force in determining first, whether that State's criminal law was in conflict with Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.

And I am not sure that Article IV even applies;

"Section 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

The terminology here refers to matters of administration - not criminal laws.

Allowing something to the states disallows it to the people, and vice versa. There are plenty of laws that already "allow" something. Is the NFA scheme unconstitutional because it generally bans machineguns, then allows people to jump through certain hoops to buy them anyway?

There is no law that I know of that "allows" you to do anything that is not inserted as an exception to a prohibition. On a State level, a "concealed handgun license" for example, is simply permission by the State to do what is for everyone else still a criminal offense. But the codifications list "licence holders" etc as exceptions to a prohibition. Like peace officers, on duty military, etc.

The NFA is unconstitutional because it infringes on the individual right to bear arms. In the form of taxation - and regulation. This is a SCOTUS issue, and SCOTUS for now seems to be happy to accept this as a "commerce clause" item. There was the recent case of the "home made" machinegun that the court accepted had not ever been in "interstate commerce" and was not therefore subject to NFA control.

I agree that it's problematic, but I want nationwide ccw reciprocity and am willing to argue just about anything to support it.

This is the road to a Federal State, in which the States become subdivisions in name only. Mere street names in the same town. Even if the subject was "the unrestricted carry of handguns open or concealed" - which I think is a great idea consistant with the 2nd - it would still be wrong. The proper place for this is the SCOTUS.

You see, if Congress were really on the same side as they are trying to give the impression that they are, they would be impeaching Supreme Court judges who have and do continue to pervert the Constitution. The "commerce clause" is a prime example.

Instead, they offer what is both a red herring and a Trojan horse. A herring because it both appeases and distracts from the right course, and the horse because it is the road to total Federalism.

They already have that authority if they have the votes. You think the SCOTUS is going to declare such legislation unconstitutional? I wouldn't bet on it. They have an out -- as long as the federal government doesn't ban open carry, they could claim that they're not really taking away anyone's right to bear arms.

Well there you have it; this is basically an "out" for both the Congress and the SCOTUS. This should be a red flag for everyone. No, the SCOTUS is not on our side - and neither is the Federal Congress.

 

[HKGuns]

From what I see, everyone here is agreed that National CCW is a plus. The only question is whether it already exists; should be agreed among the states; or should be imposed by .gov

Yeah, sure...we already have it.....Take a stroll over to packing.org and determine that you already have it.

I must just be reading the wrong thread. There's no debate in this thread. I added my comments.....tough luck if you don't like it.

I don't subscribe to the "Feds" are evil mentality that I see so often on these gun related boards. Never have, never will.

 

[shaggy]

Lak-

The Federal government might get co-operation such that concealed carry permits be "standardized" between the States that issue them - but it can not compel any State to allow citizens to carry a concealed handgun within a State's exclusive jurisdiction if it is contrary to the laws of that State

.

I have not read the bill either, but regardless of whether it is an "allow citizens" or "prohibit the States", the same applies. The Federal government by the simple Act of Congress can not prohibit the individual States from enforcing their own criminal law within their own exclusive jurisdictions.

The federal government most certainly can prohibit the states from enforcing a state regulatons and criminal statutes IF it encroaches upon an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction - such as the regulation of interstate commerce. The federal government has no Constitutionally granted police power, but the regulation of interstate commerce is reserved to the federal government. When a state police power impacts on such an area of exclusive federal regulation, the federal statute will trump the state. Such federal legislation would have to be framed very carefully to show a significant nexus to interstate comerce, but it most certainly could validly be done.

And as if the commerce clause has not been perverted and bent beyond it's logical and reasonable purpose, attempting to apply it to this subject would be an equal legal perversion.

No argument from me there, but you're only fooling yourself if you think the overreaching use of the Commerce Clause is going to stop or reverse anytime in our lifetimes. We crossed that bridge and burnt it to the ground behind us at the outset with Wickard. At this point, the only option is to learn how to use it to our best interest or get beaten with it everytime. Whining about the Constitutionality of Wickard and its progeny now is an exercise in futility. There is far too much federal legislation, regulatory agencies, and government institutions premised on the CC to 'unring that bell' now. A reversal of our CC jurisprudence now would turn the government on its ear and that is simply NOT going to happen with democrats and/or republicans controlling the White House, the SCOTUS, Congress and the Senate. Do you really expect the SCOTUS to come to their senses, reverse Wickard and its progeny and consequently eviscerate 50% or more of the federal government overnight? Oh please, get real.

The NFA is unconstitutional because it infringes on the individual right to bear arms. In the form of taxation - and regulation. This is a SCOTUS issue, and SCOTUS for now seems to be happy to accept this as a "commerce clause" item. There was the recent case of the "home made" machinegun that the court accepted had not ever been in "interstate commerce" and was not therefore subject to NFA control.

You need to read up on the NFA. There are two concurrent pieces of legislation controlling NFA items. On is premised on the taxing authority, one is premised on the interstate commerce power. Stewart notwithstanding, both have been upheld at the federal level and it doesn't look like Stewart is going anywhere fast. However, maybe you put more faith in the decisions of the 9th Circuit even though they get the issue wrong and have their assess handed to them by the SCOTUS more often than any other court in the nation. Nevertheless, the NFA which is premised on the taxing power is still valid and not at issue in Stewart so all the transfer and registration requirements of the NFA will remain in play regardless of the outcome of Stewart.

 

[Hugh Damright]

I think that it turns the Constitution on its ear to say that the feds' interstate commerce power includes CCW powers. I don't see how somebody can know that and yet still do it. It doesn't seem wise to turn the Constitution on its ear.

I believe that the valid nexus between interstate commerce and firearms is that we need to be able to transport firearms throughout the US ... for instance if Virginians made firearms and wanted to sell them to South Carolinians but North Carolina would not allow firearms to travel through their State then it would be an interstate commerce issue. And that does in reality seem to be the federal protection - that you can transport a firearm throughout the US, although it may have to be rendered inoperable in some jurisdictions.

I believe it was the Congress under one of Clinton's terms that entered into the Congressional Record that yes, the interstate commerce power includes gun control powers. They said that guns were scary and they made people scared to travel and therefore the interstate commerce power includes gun control powers. I don't see how anyone say there is clearly a valid nexus between the feds interstate commerce power and CCW, regardless of whether they like or dislike CCW.

No, I don't expect the US to suddenly reel itself in and stop usurping every power under the sun. Especially when we are here asking them to usurp some more. But I'm thinking that the SCOTUS has ruled that the interstate commerce power is limited, I think it was either Lopez or Printz ...

If CCW comes under the CC, then is there anything which does not come under the CC?

 

[shaggy]

If CCW comes under the CC, then is there anything which does not come under the CC?

Probably very little. Lopez is my last recollection of an insufficient nexus to IC, and that IMHO was only because of the limited geographical area of possession at issue. The wider the area of effect, the greater the potential nexus to IC. And while Lopez limited the scope of Congressional action based upon the CC from previous cases like Wickard, it only made it slightly more limited. Similar to Lopez, however, I think IC could be a valid basis for requiring states to recognize nationalized carry. As noted in 18 USC 922(q)(1) crime involving drugs, guns, and gangs are a pervasive nationwide problem affecting interstate commerce. However, rather than attack the problem by restricting the carry of firearms by law abiding citizens, I believe such similar legislation could be created to address the problem by recognizing the fact that the lawful carry of weapons by law abiding citizens can reduce and prevent crime affecting interstate commerce. It may also stimulte interstate commerce by fostering a sense of safety among those who do chose to carry and cross state lines. Would you be more or less apt to vaccation in areas where you could lawfully carry a weapon to defend yourself and your family (all else equal)?

Please explain what is the problem with having CCW recognized under the CC? Its not as if national CCW is even a possibility otherwise. Nor would it create any more justification or potential for anti-gun laws at the federal level than already exist. The utilization of the CC as a basis for the creation of a nationalized CCW would merely make the CC finally work for the benefit of gun owners and law abiding citizens rather than (as is usually the case) a weapon against gun owners.

 

[ATW525]

Nationally regulated CCW is bad because it most likely means a national standard for CCW permit issuance... and who do you think will have more say when it comes to determining those standards? Vermont and Alaska or the People's Republik of Kalifornia and the Commonwealth of Assachusettes?

 

[shaggy]

Nationally regulated CCW is bad because it most likely means a national standard for CCW permit issuance... and who do you think will have more say when it comes to determining those standards? Vermont and Alaska or the People's Republik of Kalifornia and the Commonwealth of Assachusettes?

As this is all hypothetical, who says it has to be based upon the standards of any single state?

If you possess a CCW from your state of residence, it should be recognized by any state into which you carry. States with NO 'license' per se would create some sort of card to be issued, or simply make a notation on the DL itself (like an organ donor stamp). As DL's are being conformed to a federal standard, and tied into centralized databases, this info could easily be carried on a state issued DL.

 

[ATW525]

As this is all hypothetical, who says it has to be based upon the standards of any single state?

The representives from those states will most likely say that, because places like Kalifornia and Assachusettes aren't going to want Vermont tourists packing whatever they feel like in thier state. I can't realistically see any kind of national reciprocity passing congress without setting some form of national standards for CCW issurance. The states with laid back regulations on CCW will get screwed because they're currently in the minority.

 

[shaggy]

Of course...but as we all know, the blue states (fortuntaely) don't always get their way.

 

[LAK]

Shaggy

The federal government most certainly can prohibit the states from enforcing a state regulatons and criminal statutes IF it encroaches upon an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction - such as the regulation of interstate commerce

The "commerce clause" has already been stretched far beyond it's legitimate application - and my my earlier thread comment on this subject applies. I am not "fooling myself"; if this bs is perpetuated it will spell the end of any significance of the States other than being different street names in the same town. It is the road to a completely de facto centralized Federal State, and the entire U.S. Constitution may as well be scrapped in such a case. And the only ones fooling themselves are those who are going to take these poisoned peanuts from a "republican" Congress - only to have them reversed - or far worse - under another Congress and leadership.

Indeed, let's get real. If we do not have a significant reversal of the current state of affairs at some stage, it is only going to continue downhill. It has been clear for a good while now, excepting some individual Representatives, that the current "republican" party is simply putting on a show for public consumption.

In a case where the Federal government would contest a State law under the "commerce clause" - or any other Article of the Constitution - the proper process is a SCOTUS challenge. Just as the SCOTUS can not legislate from the bench, the Federal Congress can not act judicially from the legislative House. These are both blatant violations of the separation of powers.

Of course the NFA is premised on the power to tax - and the "commerce clause", as is the 4473. But it is no secret that this was contrived as a measure of de facto control based on fraudulent premises. It is a simple and blatant infringement on the 2nd Amendment by intent, and continues to be so.

 

[Hugh Damright]

Please explain what is the problem with having CCW recognized under the CC?

Constitutionally speaking, I see no difference between using the CC to force every State to have CCW, and using the CC to ban CCW in every State.

What is wrong with having CCW left up to each State? Isn't CCW alive and well? Hasn't it spread like wildfire? I just don't believe that CCW is such a disaster that we must circumvent the separation of State and Federal powers.

Federalizing rights takes them away from our elected reps and puts them in the hands of the SCOTUS. Certainly you can see that. If Virginians do not like our CCW laws then we can change them. But if we federalize CCW and it turns bad, we cannot change it.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Just read through this whole thing. There are a lot of smart people on this forum.

Can't comment on what's right or wrong ... but I do know "State Rights" are more and more a thing of the past. The progression has been constant since the consitution was enacted.

In the begninning, states weren't limited at all by the federal constitution, it only limited the Federal government. Then the 14th got passed after the civil war and we've moved forward from there.

One thing, though ... if congress passes a law forcing states to accept licenses from other states, it's almost nothing but a good thing. Sure, congress can withdraw the law ... but when they do so we're just back to where we are now. And maybe if congress is under anti pressure having this law in place will give them something to vote down and make them heroes without taking away a lot from us gun owners.

Of course they can pass another law taking away CCW completely ... but they can do that now. And if they're under pressure to do something and there's no enabling law in place ...

I'd just love to see it happen so that we can get CCW in all the states. Once people realize it's not a problem and maybe even get a few positive stories out there ... well, it will be hard to pull back then.

My .02. Just wish I understood the constitutional principles as well as some of the rest of ya ...

 

[arcticap]

This legislation will fall flat on its face. Not because Congress doesn't have the authority to interprete the 2nd Amendment and send unmistakably strong signals to the Supreme Court that it is excercising it's absolute right to settle "THE" political question of who's interpretation of law reigns supreme in this country as dictated by the founders, but rather because any newly
proposed reciprocity based on a hodgepodge of state qualifications would never, ever pass muster. States, and citizens residing in each respective state would no longer be considered "equal" under the laws of the U.S. once a Federal Law is passed. A pandora's box of litigation would ensue claiming that U.S. citizens were no longer equal under God knows how many ways. It
would be like going back to the days when every state minted it's own money!
The only way out of this mess is if there is a National CCW and it has nothing
to do with the Supreme Court at all. They only drifted along the path of Congressional indifference to begin with. Congress controls the checkbook, and they just dangle it in front of the states and they can get anything done
that they set their mind to. But they aren't unified, they lack the plan and the
will to get it done. The kinds of compromises that this new legislation represents are the same kind that were attempted for many decades prior to the civil war regarding slavery issues as the nation struggled with finding it's
moral compass. And the Supreme Court vacuum for the past preceeding decades on this issue is only because Congress conveniently continues to duck the real issue. The issue is not the Commerce Clause gentlemen, but the
ultimate political question, will the REAL 2nd Amendment "please stand up"!

" 'Tis better is live one day as a lion, than 1000 years as a sheep " - Roman

 

[Handy]

I would fully support a Federal CCW license, that is good in all states.


But that doesn't sound like that's what this bill is. CCW reciprocity would force some states to permit visitors priveledges not allowed to state citizens. It seems that this would violate the Equal Protection cause, since two people standing in the same spot would have seperate laws and penalties apply to them.

It's like extraterritoriality - granting priveledge to the foreign party.



Imagine if this was some other kind of license, like real estate. How'd you like to find out that your real estate agent is actually acting under the more permissive laws of a different state with much more lax ethics codes? How about a driver's license that states that state and local speed limits do not apply to Vermont drivers, everywhere?

 

[shaggy]

Constitutionally speaking, I see no difference between using the CC to force every State to have CCW, and using the CC to ban CCW in every State.

True. But thats a poor argument. Under the guise of interstate commerce, this could be done now. Had the law in Lopez dealt with the entire country instead of the limited geographic area at issue, and been more carefefully worded, it most likely would have passed Constitutional muster.