Constitutional Carry Legislation

You'd have to have better wording than that MP...
Click to expand...
...yes and no. The courts will define onerous in the various cases. According to long established civil rights legislation, regulations close to the core right must be narrowly tailored and get decided with a very high level of scrutiny. (if not quite strict scrutiny)

The most helpful thing the congress could do, is pass legislation that carefully mirrors and reinforces what the high court rules. At this point, the ball is in the court's court, so to speak.

Any sweeping mandate from the Feds must have a solid basis in case law to withstand the inevitable challenges from state's AGs.
 
Last edited:
Is anyone aware if there is any movement towards national right to carry legislation, or a national concealed handgun license that would allow holders to carry in every state?
__________________
JustThisGuy


I don't want the federal government anywhere NEAR right to carry legislation. Anybody who'se been watching the federal government for any time at all should be wary of letting them branch out into new areas. Right to carry laws rightfully belong in the states.
 
i am all for concealed carry and do so myself. i know this may be a bit off subject to a point but it does bother me that should i find myself in a bad situation requiring the use of my gun i would then need my lawyer(s) and probably $ 30,000 in court/atty fees to "prove" why i had to use my gun not to mention having the gun taken as "evidence" on top of it. it is nice to carry but from where i sit unless youre quite well-off to uphold your rights in court then its kindof like wearing jewelry?
 
"...and probably $ 30,000 in court/atty fees to "prove" why i had to use my gun..."
Click to expand...

IMHO $30,000 will just get you into court. Look at $100,000 to get out. And be thankful that you are alive to go through the courts.
 
IIRC either here or on another forum when this came up it was stated that we would still have to adhere to the states that have the restrictions, like NYC, DC and so on. It was stated that if a state said no to its residents with regards to CCW the national permit would be useless there.I know it makes sense and it makes no sense.
 
yes they tell you it is legal under constitutional rights to carry in order to protect ourselves under certain conditions...but... when you must do so you will be thrown in jail and processed as a criminal, and good luck getting out unless youre an oil man:)
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...its-valid-across-state-lines/?test=latestnews



"Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines.

Although many states have entered into voluntary agreements, there is no nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly. A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Heath Shuler, D-N.C., aims to change that. "



IF and ONLY if this is written correctly this may be a way for residents of Illinois like myself to get Utah and Florida permits to conceal carry, bypassing a total prohibition in Illinois or strict rules in states like NY and CA.


If it is NOT written correctly, then it is another mark against the State of Illinois and states like NY and California when their conceal carry statutes are challenged in court.
 
I am frightened by the door opening by the Feds to regulate CCW. It should stay a states rights issue period. We are already winning the battles again and again in more and more states. Keep the Feds out even with such a seemingly beneficial bill. It will also include language giving the Feds the power to regulate this issue. That is NOT a good thing at all in my opinion. Leave it to the states and if your state is backwards, then leave the state. That is what I in the process of planning with my residence in CA.
 
Quite honestly do you people from NY, CA, MA, etc really think CCW will get easier through State Level legislation? You all MAY eventually have the same rights as people in a state like AZ, FL or GA but it will take decades of court decisions in your favor. This may be the only path for people in the "oppressed" states to improve the recognition level of their second amendment rights on a local level.

That being said IT NEEDS TO BE written properly, sort of how every state has to recognize each others drivers licences, without giving California and MA undue power to impose restrictions on places like GA, Fl and AZ.
 
Sorry to be so paranoid, but I see it as an opportunity for the Feds to control the CCW issue which could place my rights here in Idaho at risk down the road. Anytime the Feds give you something, you lose something at the same time. I believe it is now 40 states with fairly reasonable gun rights and that is just in the last 25 years or so. We are indeed winning the battle one state at a time. Who would have thought Wisconsin would be a SHALL issue state?

Let's not settle for the cookies and tea while the Feds assume control over what should be a states rights issue. Anyone here of the Trojan Horse. I believe we are about to embark in a huge mistake letting the Feds regulate CCW. Sorry, but HELLO, is anyone else worried about the Feds being in control of my CCW permit from Idaho?

Thanks but no thanks to Federal intervention. I am doing just fine with the system the way it is.

Unfortunately, the oppressed states such as CA deserve what they get since they keep electing these liberal politicians who hate guns. Can't have it both ways. Since CA doesn't appear to becoming any more conservative anytime soon, I will simply leave as my solution. Will take a couple of years to accomplish but I am already half way out with a condo in Idaho. Just a couple more details on the libtards in CA can have their state.

So why should we jeopardize the states who have taken the right step to enforce the second amendment in the hopes of improving the rights of people in state like CA that just reelected Jerry Brown? Sorry, but since I live in CA and am denied CCW from LA county, that still does not in any sense justify allowing the Feds regulating CCW.

Please, keep it a state right and if the libs want to keep the population oppressed, the population that elects these folks is ultimately at fault. After all, the population has the power to get rid of them if they wanted to. Let freedom reign in all of the other states that have it right. When people get tired of the oppression, even a place like Wisconsin can become a place where freedom reigns once again.

Let's keep fighting the battle state by state and when the victory is complete, we will have much greater assurance of freedom than trying to do an end run around states rights through the Feds.
 
Last edited:
NO to Federal control or involvement - absolutely NOT!
If that happens, one stroke of a pen in an Executive Order could eliminate

Why are so many here so in favor of big central government when that has been this country's problems since FDR and then again with LBJ.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have"

The more local the government is to the people, the more control the people have over their government
 
If the House passes it which will likely happen. For some reason the Senate passes it I believe Obama would sign it because he needs every vote he can get for 2012.

If it becomes law then the anti gunners would have to take it to court on the basis that firearms are exempt from the commerce clause and shouldn't be controlled by the federal government. :eek:

Imagine the GCA and the other stuff going down the tubes...lol
 
I don't see Obama signing it unless of course it is a real Trojan Horse waiting for a time down the road when the Feds just shut CCW down completely, except of course for them and their buddies. Obama signing it would go against all of his prior stances on gun control.
 
Alaska444 said:
Sorry to be so paranoid, but I see it as an opportunity for the Feds to control the CCW issue which could place my rights here in Idaho at risk down the road. Anytime the Feds give you something, you lose something at the same time. I believe it is now 40 states with fairly reasonable gun rights and that is just in the last 25 years or so. We are indeed winning the battle one state at a time. Who would have thought Wisconsin would be a SHALL issue state?
Click to expand...
There may be forty states with somewhat reasonable gun rights, but the fact is that interstate carry is a hopeless morass. I have carry licenses/permits from my home state plus three others, and I'm still only legal to carry in something like 32 or 35 states. And even that is unclear, at least to me, due to the fact that some of the states that honor licenses from my "other" states only honor them for residents of those states.

I should not have to consult the web sites, the attorney generals, and the state police commanders of every state I might wish to visit in order to determine whether or not my RKBA is respected in that state. If my state of residence sees fit to grant me a license, the other 49 should respect that.

There's even a clause in the Constitution that says so: "Full faith and credit." If the granting of a state (official government) license to me by an agency of the state government isn't an "act of the government," then what is?
 
I should not have to consult the web sites, the attorney generals, and the state police commanders of every state I might wish to visit in order to determine whether or not my RKBA is respected in that state. If my state of residence sees fit to grant me a license, the other 49 should respect that.
Click to expand...

The current issue of gay marriage might be worth investigating

If the VOTERS of a particular state want to have restrictions or non-reciprocity - that is their right to determine their fate - not yours
 
I vote for the status quo on this one. States can work out reciprocity amongst themselves. I'll happily do the CC bingo all day long rather than leave the feds to call out the numbers

"N four thousand.....nobody? OK next number, G five hundred...."

Ryan
 
oneounceload said:
The current issue of gay marriage might be worth investigating
Click to expand...
I try to stay as far away from that one as possible. I am a Justice of the Peace, but as I understand it the laws of my state do not require that I perform such marriages if requested. As to states recognizing such marriages performed in other states, where legal ... I am squarely on the fence regarding whether or not they should be recognized.
 
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member

Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 1,769

There may be forty states with somewhat reasonable gun rights, but the fact is that interstate carry is a hopeless morass. I have carry licenses/permits from my home state plus three others, and I'm still only legal to carry in something like 32 or 35 states. And even that is unclear, at least to me, due to the fact that some of the states that honor licenses from my "other" states only honor them for residents of those states.

I should not have to consult the web sites, the attorney generals, and the state police commanders of every state I might wish to visit in order to determine whether or not my RKBA is respected in that state. If my state of residence sees fit to grant me a license, the other 49 should respect that.

There's even a clause in the Constitution that says so: "Full faith and credit." If the granting of a state (official government) license to me by an agency of the state government isn't an "act of the government," then what is?
Click to expand...

Dear Aguila Blanca,

I am even worse off than you. My state of residence is CA where I have essentially zero chance of concealed carry any time soon. Nevertheless, even though my plight is much worse than what you described, I am more frightened by the possibility of Fed control over CCW.

Yes, it is a mess right now, but soon, I will only have to deal with WA, ID, MT, UT, WY, and OR and I only have to get one more CCW permit in ID to be legal in all of the places I will be. That is my solution to the gun control issues that are a mismatch around the nation and it will work for me. I will be able to be 100% carry all the time once I move out of CA.

Why jeopardize my rights in these SHALL issue states for the pathetic liberal voting people that are the majority vote in CA? If I don't like control of CCW by CA, I am quite a bit more frightened by the thought of CCW control by the Feds. That could make the CCW carry issue disappear overnight by the stroke of a pen once it is out of the hands of the state.

Nope, just one more Federal power grab in the guise of gun rights. Sorry, give me what we have today without letting the Feds have a say so in these issues. At least states like ID and other western states have it right.

In addition, with the momentum on our side in the battle state by state, what is the benefit of the Feds really? Many adjoining states offer one class for more than one state permit making the issue mute for most folks. I have NV, UT and ID and that covers almost every state I need except of course for CA. I got those three and could have added FL for additional coverage of KS and NM, but since I really have no plans to go through those states anytime soon, no need to go there.

So why give up the power that we have fighting the battle state by state with more and more joining the club all the time for the power grab of the Feds that WILL come back and bite us later. Not a good trade to me at all even though I am without remedy for CA at present. Not at all worth it to me in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top