looking for a brief and convincing argument against National Reciprocity

It runs counter to the idea of "State's Rights".

If forces states to adopt laws the majority of their citizens do not want, which many would find objectionable.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment can be subject to certain regulations.

Forcing California to in effect, adopt Vermont's laws on concealed weapons is little different than forcing Utah to adopt California's stance on the sale of alcoholic beverages or telling Texas they should have to treat residents of Massachusetts as if they were in Boston when they wanted an abortion in Texas (because a briefly held majority in congress says so).
 
ATN082268 said:
Is there any evidence, in general from our founding fathers, to support the way interstate commerce is treated by the courts?
Click to expand...
How can there be? Any court decisions based on the Constitution necessarily followed after the adoption of the Constitution, not during the discussion leading up to adoption. The Constitution specifically assigns to the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. How could the founders know how courts 100 or 200 years in the future might interpret that?
 
If one accepts the fact that the US Constitution applies to all US citizens no matter which state they reside in, or travel through, and that the 2nd Amendment of said Constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed", therefore the states have no authority to infringe on that right.

Words mean things.

Bob
NRA Endowment Member
 
I agree, words mean things. The trouble is, that the same words can mean different things to different people, or be held to mean different things at different times.

If, for instance, if you believe that those rights and restrictions mentioned in the Constitution and federal law apply only to federal law, then this would also be true..

If one accepts the fact that the US Constitution applies to all US citizens no matter which state they reside in, or travel through, and that the 2nd Amendment of said Constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed", therefore only the states have the authority to infringe on that right.


The Second Amendment is actually a rather poor choice to use as an example in this case, because the Federal Government itself has violated the "shall not be infringed" language numerous times.

Tell me how a federal govt that doesn't follow its own laws has the moral authority to tell a state government that they cannot follow their own state laws.

The fact that the US Federal govt won the Civil War isn't quite enough...at least, not to me.

No matter what some might wish, we do NOT live in a one tier system. Each level of govt has levels of authority and the legal right to them.

Got any state law you don't like? Check and see if there is a corresponding federal law. If yes, then demand the fed force the state to do away with their law (its unnecessary..) if no, demand the Fed force the state to do away with their law, (its unnecessary)....

see any problem with that???
 
Bob Willman said:
If one accepts the fact that the US Constitution applies to all US citizens no matter which state they reside in, or travel through, and that the 2nd Amendment of said Constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed", therefore the states have no authority to infringe on that right.
Click to expand...

Originally, the Bill of Rights, only restricted Congress, not state and local governments.


U.S. Supreme Court -- Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (1833)
We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

U.S. Supreme Court -- United States v. Cruikshank (1875)
The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone. It left the authority of the States unimpaired ...


Since the late 1800s, the Supreme Court has been ruling that the 14th Amendment (something that did not exist when the Bill of Rights was authored) extends the Bill of Rights to all levels of government through the equal rights provision. It is called "the Doctrine of Incorporation."

While I do not believe the 14th Amendment intended the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states, reality forces me to admit that the Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land.

The ruling being what the ruling is, then the 2nd Amendment modified by the 14th Amendment prohibits the states and localities from disarming their citizenry.

The Robert's Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) SPECIFICALLY extended the 2nd Amendment to the states and localities through the Doctrine of Incorporation.
 
Bob Willman said:
If one accepts the fact that the US Constitution applies to all US citizens no matter which state they reside in, or travel through, and that the 2nd Amendment of said Constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed", therefore the states have no authority to infringe on that right.

Words mean things.
Click to expand...
Welcome to TFL, Bob!

Words do mean things, but may not mean what you think they mean. I wrote a Federal Constitutional Primer a few years back. I'll suggest that you read the section on incorporation.
 
44AMP said:
The fact that the US Federal govt won the Civil War isn't quite enough...at least, not to me.

No matter what some might wish, we do NOT live in a one tier system. Each level of govt has levels of authority and the legal right to them.
Click to expand...

44, I concur with the sentiment, but note the contrast with political reality. When enough people want ours to be a single tier system, words on paper are not an obstacle. If "exchanges established by the states" really means "exchanges established by the states or the federal government if states decide not to establish exchanges", our reality is somewhat fluid.

Gonzales v. Raich raised the issue of whether the commerce clause gave Congress the power to effectively prohibit marijuana cultivation and use even though CA had allowed law allowing cultivation and consumption. I think widespread MJ use is a real problem an oppose its normalization. Brilliant men for whom I have great respect argued on behalf of the government in that case. They saw the danger of MJ is so great that Congress must have the power to regulate it. (The argument I recall from the time was that denying Congress intrastate control would effectively deny Congress interstate control). These same men are also proponents of constitutionally limited government.

I give that context to illustrate the lure of federal power even for smart, good and well intentioned people. As much as I don't want to see MJ normalized, that opinion shouldn't overcome a constitutional limit, yet it did.

I see the same temptation of over-reach in the congressionally mandated reciprocity issue. More liberal carry laws are a good thing, something worth arguing about. It just isn't worth doing the wrong way.
 
Last edited:
If you take the argument to its absurd extreme, Congress should not pass a national reciprocity law. Instead, congress should make a law that abolishes ALL permits. (Since that would be "equal treatment under the law". If one state, or more don't require a permit, none should.

And, while they're at it, go ahead and abolish all state governments as well. There's no point to them anymore, Federalize EVERYTHING!!!!

And, why not?, since the concept of "sovereign states" is apparently an obsolete political concept. Maybe keep State Governors, as figureheads...but absolutely disband all state legislatures, they're not needed.

All state employees would become Federal employees, all state revenue would go to the Federal govt. Think of the benefits, no more confusing and costly requirement that differ from state to state. ABOUT EVERYTHING!

Your Detroit car no longer costs more because it has to meet the CA emission standards, only the Federal standards.

IF states are actually nothing more than bureaucratic districts, subdivisions of the Federal Government, in fact, why not?? It would be more efficient.

And, once that's done, and the Fed is the ONLY government, then we can dissolve the Federal Congress, too, since its members are elected by the states, and state choices and decisions no longer matter.

And there would be little need for a Supreme Court, either. All we need is a good, strong Executive branch, to collect the taxes, and make all those pesky decisions for us, everyone would be under exactly the same laws and regulations, everywhere in the country, We should all work for this! It would be a victory for common sense, a victory for equality,

A victory for the rights of the people, all under one central uniform authority! We should praise the ideal!!

HAIL VICTORY!!!!!!

Seig Heil!!!!


:rolleyes:
 
44, to be clear, I am not celebrating sucessful Congressional over-reach, but noting it's reality.

44AMP said:
Instead, congress should make a law that abolishes ALL permits. (Since that would be "equal treatment under the law". If one state, or more don't require a permit, none should.
Click to expand...

Though I sense your tongue in your cheek, I don't think that position is incoherent even if it isn't a political possibility. I don't need a permit to publish or vote or go to church. If Ohio told me I could only attend lutheran churches, and then only so as long as they aren't within a thousand feet of a school and I had filled out the right papers and taken a 12 hour class on how to behave in church, I 'd see a problem with that.

44AMP said:
Your Detroit car no longer costs more because it has to meet the CA emission standards, only the Federal standards.
Click to expand...

I see that example as funny because it's the other side of the coin. If the interstate trade in automobiles is properly regulated by Congress to aid uniformity and trade, then federal standards should pre-empt state standards. However, CA is large, wields real political power, and can bend the federal government to get a waiver.

The power to regulate interstate commerce makes sense even where states are semi-sovereign. To abhor misapplication of the power is not the same as decrying the legitimate exercise of the granted power.


 
If the SCOTUS has defined the 2nd amendment as an individual right, as I understand it, why are the privileges of that right altered by one's state of residence?

Bob
 
If the SCOTUS has defined the 2nd amendment as an individual right, as I understand it, why are the privileges of that right altered by one's state of residence?
Click to expand...

A longer answer is because we are dealing with concepts that were codified in the late 1700s, and the generally accepted meaning of the language used wasn't really challenged until the 1900s.

Why did it take until Heller for the high court to rule and say our right to arms was an individual right, independent of the militia?

Simply because there was never any need to do so, until the self proclaimed "progressives" decided that what the Constitution said wasn't what it actually meant, and substituted their views, instead.

The nature of our government, and its relationships with itself, the states and the people have changed, since the Founders wrote the Constitution.

We are a long, long way from "to provide for the common defense, to coin money, and to regulate trade between the states" that the Founders hoped would be the only roles for the Federal Government.

Understand that for a long, long time, the only "US citizens" were those citizens of US territories and possessions. Everyone else was a citizen of a STATE. And the states were, voluntarily part of the Union. Those concepts still exist, but we are a long, long way from them today, as a practical matter.

The Federal Government rules the nation, but allows states to pretty much do what they want, up to a point. And that point is a moving target, depending on the issue involved.

If a state gets to write their own rules, about SOME things, why not everything?? or nothing? There is merit to both arguments, and also in the system as it currently exists.

How much and to what amount such merit matters, depends on the number of people who's ox is being gored, on any particular issue.

Personally, I think the system isn't broken, and therefore, doesn't need to be "fixed" (and fixed badly) the way a small but very vocal minority are demanding.

Could it, and should it be improved? Absolutely, but I don't think the proper way to do it is with a top down federal mandate, whether its called a law, a court ruling, or something else.

Don't get me wrong, I grew up in NY, and hated the laws there, way back then. I would hate the laws there now even more, but I don't live there now.

So I have a strong belief that no one from the outside should tell the people who live there how to manage their affairs, just as I don't want someone doing the same to me.

The people who live there COULD change their laws. They can change the way their government applies their laws. If they cared to. Its called representative government. (sometimes called democracy)

The down side is that if enough people are bullheaded the same way about something, they get what they want, no matter if its the right thing, or not.
 
44 AMP said:
If you take the argument to its absurd extreme, Congress should not pass a national reciprocity law. Instead, congress should make a law that abolishes ALL permits. (Since that would be "equal treatment under the law". If one state, or more don't require a permit, none should.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, that's not taking anything to a ridiculous extreme. That is, in fact, exactly what should be done. And it shouldn't be dependent on whether or not one state doesn't require permits. The Second Amendment clearly enumerates a right to keep and bear arms. I am not the first person to point out that if you need to pay a fee and procure a permission slip, it is no longer a right, but a privilege.
 
My concern is the Gov. Cuomo ends up in the white house and tries to replicate what he did to gun laws in NY at the national level. I admit to not reading any of the reciprocity legislation proposed, but I hope it would protect against this and not make it easier.
 
Patsy4fingers said:
My concern is the Gov. Cuomo ends up in the white house and tries to replicate what he did to gun laws in NY at the national level. I admit to not reading any of the reciprocity legislation proposed, but I hope it would protect against this and not make it easier.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in either the Senate or House version that would make what you fear any easier than it is already. There is also nothing in either version that would make it more difficult. Just remember -- if what you fear was easy, Obama would have done it years ago.
 
Let me address some practical poltical issues and aspects not discussed so far here.

Pro: This long term effort has a dual purpose. 1) to actually achieve federally mandated (very unlikely) reciprocity; 2) to counter significant expansion of gun control in Congress. On the latter it offers significant benefits, even if it merely serves as a poison pill as we saw in 2013.

Con: The gun control lobby fronts are more able to uses this to fundraise, and with the majority of their funding now a 501(c)3 channel to one party, this issue is to their advantage. One must consider that carry permit holders are a minority of gun owners. Whereas opposition to any expansion of carry is the full set of gun control advocates, fronts, and their funders.

In terms of views on policy (vs. political), and the long term considerations and pros and cons of incrementally moving this particular issue from a state issue to a federal one, the pros and cons of that are well covered by other commenters.

Let's recognize that this issue serves a purpose as a legislative strategy. If we look at it from that aspect, it makes a lot of sense to have on a back burner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top