Good News/Bad News
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
I don't think that's quite true. It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure our freedoms. Since this is directly one of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights, National Reciprocity is reasonable and (I believe) constitutional.
Also, if the Federal government did not have the authority do this with concealed carry, then we would not be able to use our state's driver license in other states without worrying about reciprocity for each state that we drive through.
I hope I don't read like a skeptic if I note that I will believe rumors, leaks or assertions about executive action once I see it taken, but not much before.
Let's note that it isn't clear that concealed carry is a right. I am given to understand that more than a century ago when open carry was more ordinary, concealed carry itself may have been viewed with suspicion.
State governments, unlike the federal government, have quite broad police powers and aren't limited in some of the same ways the Constitutional would or should limit the federal government. Part of that police power has included where and how people carry arms. That's why we have state carry laws. At their extreme we've seen state laws stricken where the fundamental right to keep and bear is utterly disregarded (Chicago and McDonald). I don't think I've seen a case asserting a federally protected right to concealed carry. If I am wrong in this, I will be happy about it.
Enforcing reciprocity under full faith and credit is a problem because of the public policy exception to that doctrine. No state has a public policy against driving.
I agree that concealed carry reflects good public policy. I don't see a president and congress possessing authority to enforce it nationally, at least as matters now stand. Could a Sup Ct find a right that no state could refuse? Certainly, though that would not be something the exec could effect directly.
Let's note that it isn't clear that concealed carry is a right. I am given to understand that more than a century ago when open carry was more ordinary, concealed carry itself may have been viewed with suspicion.
State governments, unlike the federal government, have quite broad police powers and aren't limited in some of the same ways the Constitutional would or should limit the federal government. Part of that police power has included where and how people carry arms. That's why we have state carry laws. At their extreme we've seen state laws stricken where the fundamental right to keep and bear is utterly disregarded (Chicago and McDonald). I don't think I've seen a case asserting a federally protected right to concealed carry. If I am wrong in this, I will be happy about it.
Enforcing reciprocity under full faith and credit is a problem because of the public policy exception to that doctrine. No state has a public policy against driving.
I agree that concealed carry reflects good public policy. I don't see a president and congress possessing authority to enforce it nationally, at least as matters now stand. Could a Sup Ct find a right that no state could refuse? Certainly, though that would not be something the exec could effect directly.
Last edited:
sd790 said:
Once again... the feds had nothing to do with reciprocity of the States DL's. The various States made reciprocity compacts with each other. Just like they now do with the various compacts to recognize (or not) concealed carry permits/licenses.
In short, the feds do not have the authority to mandate such a thing.
carguychris
New member
Let's also note that decisive federal action on this front is likely to prompt a stern legal challenge from restrictive jurisdictions, which could tie up the issue in the courts for years, and lead to an outcome that is not positive for us.zukiphile said:
The major advantage of the current voluntary CHL reciprocity system is that there's no reason for CA/NY/MA/NYC/etc. to challenge it because it doesn't affect them. Don't misunderestimate this advantage.
Without rehashing entire previous threads on this topic, I've previously suggested a tiered system with a separate federal carry license, preserving state-issued CHLs and the existing reciprocity system as a fallback. I hope this idea is given serious consideration.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
A way to get more reciprocity and shall issue laws (as compared to the restrictive issue in some areas) is to use the strategy applied to the drinking age. Limit federal funds for crime fighting unless the state changes their policy.
They can keep the laws but fight crime on their own.
They can keep the laws but fight crime on their own.
rwilson452
New member
It seems to me one way we could get a lot of these nasty anti-gun laws repealed, although it would take some time is via the supreme court. If he gets to appoint 2 judges, we could get what Heller took a swipe at and have the 2nd. designated to have strict scrutiny applied. That would make most of these laws unconstitutional.
carguychris
New member
Although I conceptually dislike so-called coercive federalism in most cases, I would also heartily support this idea.Glenn E. Meyer said:
Applying similar reasoning from my prior posts in this thread, I suspect that Trump and his cronies are unlikely to try to generally turn back coercive federalism, as much of this money benefits business interests (e.g. interstate highway and low-income housing construction funds that ultimately wind up with private construction contractors). If we're stuck with coercive federalism, let's use it for an issue I support.
This path is FAR from clear given that, again, IMHO Trump may not want to nominate one justice in the Scalia or Thomas mold, much less multiple ones. IMHO he's more likely to nominate Roberts clones.rwilson452 said:
Let's remember that the Roberts court has an established track record of turning down 2A cases post-McDonald.
Last edited:
No, not even close to what actually happened. No body "forced" the states to recognize each other's driver's licenses. It was something the states chose to do, on their own, together in agreement, because it was easily recognized that it would be a benefit to all parties involved.
One of the potential downsides to any kind of national carry license is the underlying idea that carry is something that requires a license. Having everyone (states and fed) agree to recognize everyone's license(s) effectively shoots down the idea that carry is a right. Open OR Concealed.
Any, and everything that requires a license is not a right, under the law.
We have the right to travel, but we do not have a right to drive an automobile on public roads. That requires a license, under the law.
If you require that everyone recognize and give full faith and credit to a license, you are also recognizing that a license is required.
In VERY broad terms, the idea of the Federal government being able to tell each state what they MUST do, about any or everything, is what brought about the Civil War. The final score after that one was Union 1, state's rights 0. And we are STILL suffering from some of the aftermath of the way that issue was resolved.
I'm all for encouraging states to allow CCW and recognize other state's permits and licenses. Forcing them to, is, I think, not the best idea.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
My big concern is that we are going to be sold out on background checks before any type of real Second Amendment protections are recognized by SCOTUS (let alone forced down the throats of the recalcitrant circuit courts that have refused to recognize even key parts of the existing SCOTUS 2A rulings).
However, I think we are finally going to see some solid 2A Justices on the majority.
However, I think we are finally going to see some solid 2A Justices on the majority.
carguychris said:
President Elect Trump has already given his list of SC Justice nominees.
Steven Colloton
Steven Colloton of Iowa is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a position he has held since President George W. Bush appointed him in 2003. Judge Colloton has a résumé that also includes distinguished service as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and a lecturer of law at the University of Iowa. He received his law degree from Yale, and he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Colloton is an Iowa native.
Allison Eid
Allison Eid of Colorado is an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado Governor Bill Owens appointed her to the seat in 2006; she was later retained for a full term by the voters (with 75% of voters favoring retention). Prior to her judicial service, Justice Eid served as Colorado’s solicitor general and as a law professor at the University of Colorado. Justice Eid attended the University of Chicago Law School, and she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
Raymond Gruender
Raymond Gruender of Missouri has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit since his 2004 appointment by President George W. Bush. Judge Gruender, who sits in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensive prosecutorial experience, culminating with his time as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Gruender received a law degree and an M.B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis.
Thomas Hardiman
Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 2007. Prior to serving as a circuit judge, he served as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2003. Before his judicial service, Judge Hardiman worked in private practice in Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh. Judge Hardiman was the first in his family to attend college, graduating from Notre Dame.
Raymond Kethledge
Raymond Kethledge of Michigan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit since 2008. Before his judicial service, Judge Kethledge served as judiciary counsel to Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, worked as a partner in two law firms, and worked as an in-house counsel for the Ford Motor Company. Judge Kethledge obtained his law degree from the University of Michigan and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Joan Larsen
Joan Larsen of Michigan is an Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Larsen was a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law from 1998 until her appointment to the bench. In 2002, she temporarily left academia to work as an Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Justice Larsen received her law degree from Northwestern and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.
Thomas Lee
Thomas Lee of Utah has been an Associate Justice of the Utah Supreme Court since 2010. Beginning in 1997, he served on the faculty of Brigham Young University Law School, where he still teaches in an adjunct capacity. Justice Lee was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Civil Division from 2004 to 2005. Justice Lee attended the University of Chicago Law School, and he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Lee is also the son of former U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee and the brother of current U.S. Senator Mike Lee.
William Pryor
William H. Pryor, Jr. of Alabama is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He has served on the court since 2004. Judge Pryor became the Alabama Attorney General in 1997 upon Jeff Sessions’s election to the U.S. Senate. Judge Pryor was then elected in his own right in 1998 and reelected in 2002. In 2013, Judge Pryor was confirmed to a term on the United States Sentencing Commission. Judge Pryor received his law degree from Tulane, and he clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
David Stras
David Stras of Minnesota has been an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court since 2010. After his initial appointment, he was elected to a six-year term in 2012. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Stras worked as a legal academic at the University of Minnesota Law School. In his time there, he wrote extensively about the function and structure of the judiciary. Justice Stras received his law degree and an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
Diane Sykes
Diane Sykes of Wisconsin has served as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2004. Prior to her federal appointment, Judge Sykes had been a Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 1999 and a Wisconsin trial court judge of both civil and criminal matters before that. Judge Sykes received her law degree from Marquette.
Don Willett
Don Willett of Texas has been a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court since 2005. He was initially appointed by Governor Rick Perry and has been reelected by the voters twice. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Willett worked as a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as an advisor in George W. Bush’s gubernatorial and presidential administrations, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and as a Deputy Attorney General under then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Justice Willett received his law degree and a master’s degree from Duke.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...of-names-of-potential-united-states-supreme-c
.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Let's not rehash the election and I said let the comments from Australia go. Such things deleted.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
One more warning - the OP was focused on gun rights issues. Get back to that or we are closed.
rwilson452
New member
I vote for closure.
I know it's not my call or subject to a vote.
I know it's not my call or subject to a vote.
kilimanjaro
New member
Just stay on topic.
I think UBCs are a given, either as a sop to the left to pass some repeals or when they return to power. Personally, I'd rather see UBC legislation from the GOP pro-rights Congress than from Bloomberg and is anti-gun state initiatives.
I think UBCs are a given, either as a sop to the left to pass some repeals or when they return to power. Personally, I'd rather see UBC legislation from the GOP pro-rights Congress than from Bloomberg and is anti-gun state initiatives.
In ways I would also like some federal law that would encompass the entire country instead of this patchwork of vague, poorly written, confusing or just plain asinine...
I have mixed feelings about any new federal law, but I really don't like the possibility of becoming an accidental criminal.
I do apologize to the members and staff. I'm one of the worst for dragging topics into left/right politics. But, guns will forever be tied to party politics so it does make it difficult to separate it out. I think the staff realizes that and grants a little limited leeway in the matter. They are more than fair, thank you.
I haven't been liking ballot initiatives, it's turning into mob rule by ballot. Especially in Washington.
I have mixed feelings about any new federal law, but I really don't like the possibility of becoming an accidental criminal.
I do apologize to the members and staff. I'm one of the worst for dragging topics into left/right politics. But, guns will forever be tied to party politics so it does make it difficult to separate it out. I think the staff realizes that and grants a little limited leeway in the matter. They are more than fair, thank you.
I haven't been liking ballot initiatives, it's turning into mob rule by ballot. Especially in Washington.