Spats McGee
Administrator
LOL! I am absolutely going to steal that line.icedog88 said:
Contact your representative now for ccw
- Thread starter Daugherty16
- Start date
Dear Icedog,
NY, RI, NJ, MD, MA, CT are grouped into a true dead zone. However, outside of that, IL, CA and Hawaii, the rest of the US is doing quite well.
I don't believe this legislation will help those states at all. They are completely Blue and not likely to change anytime soon. So even with this legislation, it is not likely that you will get what you want anyway.
Let the courts do what they will and hope that the Bill of Rights will over turn their intransigence.
Sorry to hear your situation.
NY, RI, NJ, MD, MA, CT are grouped into a true dead zone. However, outside of that, IL, CA and Hawaii, the rest of the US is doing quite well.
I don't believe this legislation will help those states at all. They are completely Blue and not likely to change anytime soon. So even with this legislation, it is not likely that you will get what you want anyway.
Let the courts do what they will and hope that the Bill of Rights will over turn their intransigence.
Sorry to hear your situation.
It may or may not, but it gives us a glimmer of hope. Call it grasping at straws or whatever. If you starve a man and offer him rancid meat 3 weeks later, it may look like prime rib, and he will probably eat it. The fact is I have a permit to carry in CT and that's fine if I wish to never leave. Someone is offering me a chance to change that. I'm hungry and am gonna eat! No disrespect to anyone on here but most people who are against it, already have reciprocity and one state doesn't have a carry provision at all so no issue there to begin with. Ahh, then there's us Easties. We who have great jobs and family here. Basically stuck in this bastion of liberal dems...yeah, no picnic here. Hell, if I lived out where I either didn't have to leave my state, or the neighboring state recognized my permit, I'd probably not want it to pass either. But alas, I do not. Never judge a man til you walk a mile in his shoes. Hell, I'll do you one better. Never judge a man til you've paced in his cage.
Spats McGee
Administrator
icedog88, for my own education, I just took a look at handgunlaw.us and some of the pdfs relating to the northeast US (including CT). Y'all really do have my sympathy.
With that said, I still think that we'd all be better off with a favorable SCOTUS decision. It is my sincere hope that such a decision is close at hand.
Alternatively, something comparable to the Driver's License Compact, enacted at the state level, would be better for most states. Unfortunately, your state might be one of those that won't enter into such a thing.
With that said, I still think that we'd all be better off with a favorable SCOTUS decision. It is my sincere hope that such a decision is close at hand.
Alternatively, something comparable to the Driver's License Compact, enacted at the state level, would be better for most states. Unfortunately, your state might be one of those that won't enter into such a thing.
Spats, I agree completely with that assessment in regards to SCOTUS, but barring that, what else but HR822 do we have? Not really too bad here in CT. Except that I have a STATE issued permit but in two TOWNS, no carry of ANY kind is permitted. Weird, but ok, whatever. Everytime I read state laws concerning carry, the next time I carry(which is usually when I get home from work in RI) I feel like my carrying a gun is a "dirty little secret". Such is the attitude here. Told point blank by a police chief in MA, there is no way I would get a permit to carry for an out of state resident even with my CT carry permit. Told by a couple of gun store owners in RI, that unless I own a business in RI, damn near impossible to get one there either. My permit class instructor tried to get one in RI since he trains LEOs in RI AND is a certified NRA instructor for 25+yrs. DENIED! Had to go all the way up to the AG in RI and after 2yrs he finally gets one. It's these incidents, and many others like them, that make us lap up any scraps. But thank you for the sympathy. It means that people are beginning to see how some of us can see this as our only alternative to SCOTUS decision.
Al Norris said:
Somehow the Commerce Clause has lately become the wildcard of the Constitution. Since virtually anything that anybody does involves some sort of interstate action, the Commerce Clause has been twisted to cover it.
I agree with you, Al, that justifying this bill's Constitutionality with the Commerce Clause is a loser for the people - regardless of the bill's merits, it helps to broaden what I think should be a rather narrowly applied part of the Constitution.
On a different note, in the "one size fits all" federal legislation argument, add No Child Left Behind to the list. There appear to be several reasons why HR 822 is not a great idea.
The feds use the Commerce Clause the way same way the Dept of Education justifies sticking their fingers in every pie if it even remotely has anything to do with education.
What's worse though is when giant bureaucracies battle it out for turf. The U.S. Dept of Agriculture controls most school lunch programs, and the Department of Education thinks that they should control school lunch programs… so they duke it out.
Here’s an idea – let the parents of the kids that are going to the school decide what’s best for their kids to eat if they’re going to eat at school.
So lets say that 822 becomes law.. and some states don’t comply… what agency checks and reports on that? BATFE?
What's worse though is when giant bureaucracies battle it out for turf. The U.S. Dept of Agriculture controls most school lunch programs, and the Department of Education thinks that they should control school lunch programs… so they duke it out.
Here’s an idea – let the parents of the kids that are going to the school decide what’s best for their kids to eat if they’re going to eat at school.
So lets say that 822 becomes law.. and some states don’t comply… what agency checks and reports on that? BATFE?
Hardcase said,
Not to split hairs, but the federal government has been bastardizing the commerce clause for three quarters of a century. See cases such as National Labor Rights Board vs. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) (saying that anything produced in one state and which has some effect on interstate commerce may be federally regulated); Wickard vs. Filburn (1942) (during WWII Congress enacted mandatory limits on grain production for sale. One farmer who grew wheat solely for his own use was told that he had to abide by the Congressionally mandated limit because refraining from buying someone else's grain could affect interstate commerce); Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) (civil rights cases where Court used Commerce Clause rather than the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause to declare racial discrimination illegal in business settings). I point these cases out to show that 1) broad use of the Commerce Clause has been ongoing for decades; 2) the Commerce Clause is often used to justify things which may be politically popular but legally untenable; 3) once in effect, legislation justified through the use of Commerce Clause becomes nearly impossible to attack and further forms the basis for later, more expansive legislation.
To Al's point, justifying this legislation under the 2nd and 14th Amendments and the recent Heller and McDonald cases would have made this a different piece of legislation. It would have, in effect, said that Congress is only able to pass this law because it is in accord with laws already in effect, namely the Constitution. (Although, as discussed much earlier in this chain, such unnecessary federal legislation is redundant and, in my mind, not preferable.)
However, as it stands, justification under the Commerce Clause communicates that the individual right to bear arms on one's person (whether concealed or open) from state to state stems from Congress and not from the states and not from the Constitution. Instead, according to the Constitutional interpretation now in place, you may possess a weapon in your house. If you can carry it concealed in your home state, that authority stems from your state. If you can carry it to another state--if H.R. 822 becomes law--you may do so because Congress is kind enough to allow you to do so. So, no one can prevent you from owning a weapon in your home (unless you're a felon), the States have authority to issue or not issue carry permits, and Congress gets to say whether you can carry outside your home state. When someone decides to sue because of an issue resulting from carrying in another state, the question will be what Congress intended by passing this bill, not what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution. There will be no Constitutional protection in such case and if such a case ever reaches the Supreme Court, they will rule on the laws passed by Congress rather than pertinent Constitutional issues. So, not only are we giving Congress more power here, we are postponing and perhaps permanently preventing the Supreme Court from ruling on the extent of the 2A's authority to carry a weapon for self-defense.
Not to split hairs, but the federal government has been bastardizing the commerce clause for three quarters of a century. See cases such as National Labor Rights Board vs. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) (saying that anything produced in one state and which has some effect on interstate commerce may be federally regulated); Wickard vs. Filburn (1942) (during WWII Congress enacted mandatory limits on grain production for sale. One farmer who grew wheat solely for his own use was told that he had to abide by the Congressionally mandated limit because refraining from buying someone else's grain could affect interstate commerce); Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) (civil rights cases where Court used Commerce Clause rather than the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause to declare racial discrimination illegal in business settings). I point these cases out to show that 1) broad use of the Commerce Clause has been ongoing for decades; 2) the Commerce Clause is often used to justify things which may be politically popular but legally untenable; 3) once in effect, legislation justified through the use of Commerce Clause becomes nearly impossible to attack and further forms the basis for later, more expansive legislation.
To Al's point, justifying this legislation under the 2nd and 14th Amendments and the recent Heller and McDonald cases would have made this a different piece of legislation. It would have, in effect, said that Congress is only able to pass this law because it is in accord with laws already in effect, namely the Constitution. (Although, as discussed much earlier in this chain, such unnecessary federal legislation is redundant and, in my mind, not preferable.)
However, as it stands, justification under the Commerce Clause communicates that the individual right to bear arms on one's person (whether concealed or open) from state to state stems from Congress and not from the states and not from the Constitution. Instead, according to the Constitutional interpretation now in place, you may possess a weapon in your house. If you can carry it concealed in your home state, that authority stems from your state. If you can carry it to another state--if H.R. 822 becomes law--you may do so because Congress is kind enough to allow you to do so. So, no one can prevent you from owning a weapon in your home (unless you're a felon), the States have authority to issue or not issue carry permits, and Congress gets to say whether you can carry outside your home state. When someone decides to sue because of an issue resulting from carrying in another state, the question will be what Congress intended by passing this bill, not what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution. There will be no Constitutional protection in such case and if such a case ever reaches the Supreme Court, they will rule on the laws passed by Congress rather than pertinent Constitutional issues. So, not only are we giving Congress more power here, we are postponing and perhaps permanently preventing the Supreme Court from ruling on the extent of the 2A's authority to carry a weapon for self-defense.
A New Yorker here...
This bill gives us in commie states a glimmer of hope.
If visitors are allowed to carry throughout my state, how can the state deny the residents the same right? This opens up a door to challenging ridiculous restrictions that are imposed on us by the New York State. Currently, NYS carry permits explicitly forbid holders from carrying in NYC. Yet, if HR822 becomes law, tourists will be able to do so.
I say, let's break the barriers! Let all visitors carry concealed weapons. NYC will be forced to finally open its doors to CCW. From there, it's only a couple of more steps to making this state a shall-issue entity.
I hope and pray that HR822 becomes law. Screw you, Bloomberg and Schumer! The iron curtain is coming down.
And for those that oppose the bill, whose side are you on? Are you with anties? Or are you for Constitution? This issue is not a state issue anyway. 2nd Amendment does not stop at NY border. There's nothing in this bill that violates States Rights. It just enforces Full Faith and Closure. Otherwise, why aren't the Southern States allowed to have slavery, segregation and whatever else they had before the Civil Rights movement.
Once again, everyone please call their Senators to support this bill.
This bill gives us in commie states a glimmer of hope.
If visitors are allowed to carry throughout my state, how can the state deny the residents the same right? This opens up a door to challenging ridiculous restrictions that are imposed on us by the New York State. Currently, NYS carry permits explicitly forbid holders from carrying in NYC. Yet, if HR822 becomes law, tourists will be able to do so.
I say, let's break the barriers! Let all visitors carry concealed weapons. NYC will be forced to finally open its doors to CCW. From there, it's only a couple of more steps to making this state a shall-issue entity.
I hope and pray that HR822 becomes law. Screw you, Bloomberg and Schumer! The iron curtain is coming down.
And for those that oppose the bill, whose side are you on? Are you with anties? Or are you for Constitution? This issue is not a state issue anyway. 2nd Amendment does not stop at NY border. There's nothing in this bill that violates States Rights. It just enforces Full Faith and Closure. Otherwise, why aren't the Southern States allowed to have slavery, segregation and whatever else they had before the Civil Rights movement.
Once again, everyone please call their Senators to support this bill.
We would NOT be allowed to carry and would have to abide by the laws of the state like in NYC no carry. The proposed law is bad and offer NO GLIMMER of hope to those in states where CCW is next to impossible. How about the possibility of NYS just saying no all together to CCW if H.B. 822 passes????? Could happen in any state that does not agree with H.B. 822
oneounceload
Moderator
Wrong - what they will do is make more restrictions
People are trying to use one amendment to work on another
NYC and others will first - tie it up in courts for a decade or three
then, IF they lose, they will just redesignate where you can carry - which will be no where except maybe your hotel room
Way too many folks here, it seems, that have not lived through the gun acts from 68 and 86 nor understand the maelstrom of political fighting this will entail - to no ones advantage in the end.
Do NOT let the Feds into this argument - nothing good every came from them in any of these situations
youngunz4life
New member
Don't listen to this advice. It is wrong. I'm done w/this thread and I'm not surprised these people think twice before helping gun advocates. Not everyone is in there little world and is OK because he/she can carry. For those that have a much bigger scope, getting every single non-resident permit and resident CCW is absolutely painstaking and ridiculous. You all have a good one(as in Holiday Season).
therealdeal
New member
RIGHT ON! It is amazing how many people opposed to the bill feel like they have it all figured out?! What a crock.
What will happen here if this bill becomes law is states like NY will simply impose burdensome "conditions or limitations" - like, for instance, you have to pay a special tax, or your gun has to be on a special list, and has to be inspected by some department etc. etc. This way, they can effectively continue with the status quo - the conditions/limitations can be tailored so that they are not too bad for residents who have a CCW but extremely difficult/impossible for non-residents.
States that are CCW-friendly but don't necessarily have full reciprocity at the moment will simply accept the new law and probably will not try to but obstacles in the way of non-residents, because it's not worth the hassle for them. They would have to upset a lot of their own residents, so they will just live with it. So, there is some benefit in it, from that point of view.
In exactly the same way that they are denying it now. Why would it be different?
Sure there are obstacles they can put forth to try to prevent this from happening. However, any act like this opens them up to court review and scrutiny. So in the end they might lose anything they have on the books already.
As far as the limitations go, the bill talks about restricted places that some states designate. New York actually has a lot less limitations than most CCP-friendly states.
NYC does issue its own CCP, and because of that it will be open for out-of-staters to carry. However, since NYS permits are not valid within NYC, New York residents will not be able to exercise their rights there. Now, if NYC outlaws all carry within its borders it will be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment and the Federal Court will force them to issue permits again. Plus, Donald Trump and DeNiro will get ****** off at Bloomy and prevent him from doing such an unlawful act.
As far as the limitations go, the bill talks about restricted places that some states designate. New York actually has a lot less limitations than most CCP-friendly states.
NYC does issue its own CCP, and because of that it will be open for out-of-staters to carry. However, since NYS permits are not valid within NYC, New York residents will not be able to exercise their rights there. Now, if NYC outlaws all carry within its borders it will be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment and the Federal Court will force them to issue permits again. Plus, Donald Trump and DeNiro will get ****** off at Bloomy and prevent him from doing such an unlawful act.
I don't see how it would open them up to scrutiny more than they already are. This law does not establish any rights whatsoever. It just says that the state will extend the same privileges to non-resident CCW holders that it extends to residents. I am no expert but I can't see a case like that being a priority for the Federal courts.
I believe there is a case, or cases, in the federal court system to establish exactly that - whether banning carry is a violation of the 2nd amendment. The issue is not settled yet. So it's far from clear at this point.
Chicago Tribune editorial concerning 822
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-guns-1121-jm-20111121,0,4846129.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-guns-1121-jm-20111121,0,4846129.story