Federal, all states carry license.

Right now, in Utah, I can legally carry in churches, bars, all public schools, all state, county and city government buildings (except specific secure areas), intrastate public transportation, sporting events, polling places, public gatherings, city, county and state parks, etc. Why on earth would I want to support a "uniform law" that would undoubtedly make many of these places "no-carry zones"? Certainly not to make it 'convenient' for those who don't want to expend the effort to research the laws of the state(s) in which they might carry!
 
Nowhere in the US Constitution Article I, or any of the Amendments, does it authorize the Federal Government to issue a federal license. The power of the Federal Government is strictly confined to certain actions detailed in Article I Section 8 and Amendments as to the types of laws it may create.

ALL other rights and powers are reserved to the States, and the People, in the 10th Amendment.
 
Thanks for the comment DonH. How about useing Utah as the model for the uniform law? No reason why a uniform law has to be more restrictive than what is in place. Not sure why you jumped to that conclusion.
 
The least restrictive would be no permit required for open or concealed carry, I could get behind that.

When the Supremes finally get to a bear Arms case, i hope we still have enough conservatives to get a shall issue ruling for all states out of them.
 
Bluesfan said:
Thanks for the comment DonH. How about useing Utah as the model for the uniform law? No reason why a uniform law has to be more restrictive than what is in place. Not sure why you jumped to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Simply because most states are more restrictive and feel the need to be more controlling of their populace. Since most states forbid carry in many of the places I listed, and seem quite contented with those restrictions, it seems logical that those same restrictions would be included in a "uniform law". I have no reason to believe that the politicians in a great many states would embrace the idea of citizens carrying in schools, bars or, especially, in the government buildings that the politicians work in or frequent. If they did, it would already be legal in most states, wouldn't it?

Last but not least, many of those who carry are , for the most part, reasonably happy with the restrictions and see no need to carry in schools or to allow carry in bars, for example. So, where's the push for change? Of the 9,500 active members of this board, how many have bothered to get a CCW permit? Probably a whole lot more than have actively lobbied their lawmakers to loosen the carry restrictions. That just seems to be human nature.

Sorry, but the way I see it, the more-restrictive states are in the majority and any "uniform law" would, of necessity, be more restrictive than what I enjoy now.
 
I've always wondered when a proposition linking a federal permit to a cherry-picker, i.e. lenient, federal agency firearms program would surface. I wonder still...
 
Does anybody here want Eric Holder, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Obama crowd writing regulations for concealed carry? I sure don't. The qualifications would be so expensive and onerous that only the very wealthy could meet them.
 
First off all, not everyone is a fan of the UCC or other so-called uniform statutes, which are frankly not all that uniform. Sure, having a general idea of the law in another state is nice, but you still have to read the statute closely to figure out what the State decided to keep and discard from the proposed uniform language.

Second, a Federal CCL would be based on a statute that was poorly written, full of obscure restrictions, and neglected to account for the impact of other federal laws. Plus, being a federal program, it would become manadatory to have a federal license within one year of passage, but it would take 5-15 years to implement the licensing procedure.

I'd rather just travel along scenic routes and every now and then curse the fact that I have to stop and disarm to travel through certain states and cities.
 
As already stated here, it is much stronger if it comes from the states. Think of the difference between a single strand of rope (federal CCW license) and a net made of that same rope (individual states with mutual or obligatory reciprocity)
 
bblatt,if you look at the posted threads there is always someone wanting advice on ccw laws in various states,including the posters own. I think some continuity among the states that grant reciprocity would go a long way toward keeping us all law abiding citizens.
As for your second paragraph....Huh?:confused:
 
Bluesfan,

the implementation of federal statutes is not always well thought out. Frequently a new law is "so important" that it has to go into effect quickly, when in fact the infrastructure for enforcing and overseeing the new law or regulation will take a lot longer to put into place.

For instance: the IRS has adopted new fee structures to encourage people to use an online aide when filing for a 501(c). Problem: The fee structure began Jan. 1, the online aide will be available sometime in 2010, maybe.

I can see a Federal CCL program with an early start date but no way to issue such licenses or track applicants for some time. And that's besides what's already been pointed out - a Federal CCL would be weaker than my current state CCL.
 
bblatt,
I think there is some confusion. I was not advocating any federal involvement in the state ccw law. However there needs to be some uniformity anong the states that allow ccw and grant reciprocity so that ccw holders traveling from one state to another can do so without prior extensive legal research.
I do agree that this is probably not a priority for most legislatures and would take forever to pass.
Just my suggestion regarding a concern many TFL members seem to have.
 
A federal law probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster. It would interfere with powers traditionally left to the states.
Click to expand...

Since when do the feds worry about the constitution when interfering with state law and individual rights?
 
Since when do the feds worry about the constitution when interfering with state law and individual rights?
Click to expand...

They don't. But the Supreme Court does. Study the first Gun-Free School Zone Act. I believe the basis that rendered that law unconstitutional would render a national CWP law unconstitutional. Of course, if lawmakers could tie an "interstate commerce" issue to it, well then, we would have another matter.
 
Are the current ones all state laws? Or did they find a way to appease the court?
Click to expand...

The first law was found unconstitutional essentially because lawmakers overstepped their power and attempted to regulate was was essentially a states issue. Regulation of interstate commece is within their powers. So, they tied "interstate commerce" wording to it and repassed it under the assumption it would pass constitutional scrutiny. AFAIK, there have been no challenges to the new act.
 
they tied "interstate commerce"
Click to expand...

It is amazing what can be tied to interstate commerce. I just noticed my daughters grade school crossing state lines the other day.:rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I don't want criminals bringing guns into my daughters school. But do the criminals adhere to the zones and follow the law? I would not mind qualified teachers having a gun to protect my daughter if the BG's show up. No I don't think a "qualified" teacher would loose it and shoot the kids. If that was likely most parents would no longer have kids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top