National CCW Law

I feel that the requirement of a permit to carry is an infringement that needs to be fought rather than encouraged by getting the feds involved.

I as I put it on another site

I'm not in favor of getting permission to exercise my right from the government that right is meant to protect me from.
 
This would have been a great help to truckers (such as myself). Doing such a dangerous job would be greatly improved if we could better defend ourselves. Illinois would still present a problem, but that state excels at presenting problems. Some day they will get tired of reaping what they sow.
 
Ok, if this is really about states rights, then why aren't they telling the ATF to back off and leave Tennessee and Montana alone, hmm? Didn't think so.
 
The more I think about it, the more this vote scares the crap out of me. This could have just as easily been an anti-gun bill being brought to vote with less than a week of public knowledge.

I kinda felt like I had hired a prostitute when I learned that this bill might be part of the defense bill. That I'd benefit with a satisfactory result, but through dirty means.

We cant have things our way pass the way things not our way we'd complain about. It's not "the nature of business" ,it's just plain wrong.

I'm glad it didn't pass, even though it would have been great for me and saved me tons of money. It just wasn't the right way to do things. I am amazed at how close it was though.

I think this vote is a peep at how this country is going to spiral out of control with the current system in place. There seems to be zero direction for either party. It's just collapsing around us at an alarming rate. I'll be thankful to have a 40 hour work week during the Christmas rush. My coworkers think I'm nuts, but I see us slipping into a deeper recession than the "Great Depression"
 
Ok, if this is really about states rights, then why aren't they telling the ATF to back off and leave Tennessee and Montana alone, hmm? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...
And that's one thing we are fighting to stop. But to say states rights on one hand, and pass something like this on the other is hypocritical...
 
Yellowfin, the States did tell the ATF (and the rest of the feds) to back off. In this case, the ATF just flipped them the finger.

Should I get on my soapbox?

Repel the 17th amendment, for Starters. Give control of the Senate back to the States and you just might see some changes.

Get 45 of the 50 States to pass similar laws, and even the Supreme Court might take notice and begin to seriously rethink some of its decisions.

I could go on, but none of this will ever happen, Why? Because the majority (and we gunnies aren't them) of the people in the U.S. just don't give a damn.

Find a way to turn that around, and you will see results.
 
Yellowfin, the GCA of 1968 is Federal Law and the states ain't going to get around that one without repealing the law. Delcaring their "sovereignty" is what I think they call a Noble Futile Gesture. However, having a good CCW law is not futile and makes it hard for the a fed controlled by anti-gunners to reverse it. However, it is slow and messy.

Al is right and at the risk of great flaming for using a cliche; think global, act local.

If you live in a state that doesn't have CCW, work with your state firearms assocation to make it so.

If you live in a state that is "may issue" then work with your state firearms association to make it "shall issue".

If your state does not have CCW reciprocity with other states... well you know.

I left TN in 1975 and we had NO CCW. When I retired and returned in 2001 we did and so did about 35 or more other states. How did that happen? Lots of local work and I thank those who worked for it.

We need to look to ourselves not the fed to make this happen and then the fed will have LOTS of trouble if they ever want to take it away.

I too want national reciprocity but I didn't like this bill. It seemed cheap and the repercussions were too large. Not so with the National Park deal which I supported very much. I think this bill might have been a "Bridge Too Far".
 
I really enjoyed what Maestro Pistoleero put down there. If he or someone else can provide a link to that I would like to post it elsewhere. One error is that you stated it did pass, but actual I believe it was tied into the military appropriations bill, which for some reason takes 60 votes to pass. It takes 67 votes to overturn a veto. This is just an odd rule the Senate has.

What if Obama did not veto it? Just think about it and ignore the obvious fact that he will.

1968 is Federal Law and the states ain't going to get around that one without repealing the law
Click to expand...
Just as California was not able to overrule the Fed ban on cannabis. They have basically received a defacto OK from the DEA under the presidents guidance. I would not be surprised if a similar situation arises with some of these other tenth amendment movements.
 
Last edited:
Al is right and at the risk of great flaming for using a cliche; think global, act local.

If you live in a state that doesn't have CCW, work with your state firearms assocation to make it so.

If you live in a state that is "may issue" then work with your state firearms association to make it "shall issue".

If your state does not have CCW reciprocity with other states... well you know.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
maestro pistolero said:
Once every state is required to stop infringing on 'keep and bear' by the application of the 2nd to the states, (i.e. shall issue) the leap to reciprocity won't seem as long.

It 's going to be a fine day when Daley, Bloomberg, Schumer, and Feinstein finally sit down to their crow banquet. They SO have it coming.
Click to expand...
That incorporation on application of the Second Amendment by the Fourteenth Amendment may be on the way.

The NRA has posted at their site HERE the amicus brief they submitted which also includes briefs in concurrence from the attorneys general of 33 states.

In The
Supreme Court of the United States
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.,
Respondents.
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
Respondent.
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
On Petition For Writs Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Seventh Circuit
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
BRIEF OF THE STATES OF TEXAS, GEORGIA, ALABAMA,
ALASKA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, FLORIDA, IDAHO,
INDIANA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MAINE,
MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI,
MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW MEXICO,
NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA,
PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH,
VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WYOMING
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS​
 
States don't have rights they have powers so can we please stop calling it states rights'?

State governments are just as capable of tyranny and oppression as the federal government.

There should be a balance between the rights of the people, powers of the federal government, and powers of the state.

Right now the federal powers are clearly at the top of the heap, followed in a distant second by the powers of the state, and then we get to our rights.

National reciprocity by the feds exercises federal power in an area that should be a power of the states. I would agree that many states exercise this power in a way detrimental to the RKBA.

The founders didn't see state tyranny coming hence the need for the 14th amendment.
 
Reciprocity isn't even an issue of the state - the point is that the 2nd amendment is universal, active and able in all territories, states or cities of the United States including the ability to conceal carry. It doesn't need reciprocity, it needs just plain acknowledged. This is not a power of the Fed, nor a power of the State, but a right of the People without restriction of any kind.

10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (it isn't delegated to Federal government), nor prohibited by it to the States (it IS prohibited by the States to restrict/ban/control by text of the 2nd amendment), are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infriged?).

Note it doesn't say "shall not be infringed except by the State", nor does it say "keep and bear arms only when unconcealed". That is the real issue :-)
 
That's a nice sentiment but everyone here knows that when it comes down to the Bill Of Rights, that the 2nd Amendment is looked at as an outcast.

In practical terms, it is not a right. It is a privilege. It can be taken away at any second, and it is legislated beyond most other "rights" to it's core.

If it had passed, I would be happy, but so's your average John(yes, that kind). This vote wasn't the way to go about this issue.

And since it is, practically speaking, a "privilege", we have to tred softly. I think that if nothing else, this vote, and how close it was, will help speed up state reciprocity agreements, and create a country wide average requirements agenda. Which is, in my eyes, a good thing.
 
Skeezix, that's a simply wrong view of the 2nd amendment. Not even the founders believed the way you (and many others) do.

Did they believe that everyman should be armed? Yes. Did they believe any of the amendments pertained to anything other than the central government? No.

They were very afraid of a remote, but central and powerful government. Some of them, so much so, that they insisted on a bill of rights. In fact, 5 States had it wrote into their ratifying documents that without such a bill, they wouldn't have ratified the Constitution.

Vranasaurus has it exactly right. Not a single founder believed that the States themselves, could (or even would) turn on its own citizens. A shortcoming of their vision, yes, but understandable when looked at in context.

With the aftermath of the civil war, the 14th was necessary to bring fundamental rights to all citizens of all the States. Too bad the Supreme Court was so conservative, that they just couldn't stand that the 14th stood Federalism on its head, as it were.
 
Yes it would be nice to have something that pushes more people to own and carry a firearm. And you are most assuredly correct that We The People have tread too softly.

The 2nd is not viewed as an outcast, more like a threat, which is why it is attacked so harshly. Of course, so are the others as well. There really isn't free speech, certainly not the right to a fair trial, nor are we secure in property or have had our petitions and grievances answered as noted to be our right in the first amendment.

I think it was John F Kennedy that said "When you make a peaceful revolution impossible you make a violent one inevitable." I would prefer not to see violent revolution in this country, but should it come to that it won't be a choice made from the civil side of the fence - so close to what was stated many years ago:

"We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends."

Government always has the choice, as do we, to settle things in a respectful, beautiful and glorious manner by giving way to liberty and freedom. The human spirit will always live somewhere, refusing to die.
 
Skeezix, that's a simply wrong view of the 2nd amendment. Not even the founders believed the way you (and many others) do.
Click to expand...

What was it that was wrong, and what was it that our founders believed differently?

The Bill of Rights was included for a reason, and the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Do States have the right to remove freedom of speech? To remove the right to be secure against unwarranted search and seizure? To not be able to follow a religion of our choice? These are the unalienable rights this document was meant to defend, and placed there to reinforce this regardless of what the State did or did not do.
 
The Bill of Rights was included for a reason, and the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Do States have the right to remove freedom of speech? To remove the right to be secure against unwarranted search and seizure? To not be able to follow a religion of our choice? These are the unalienable rights this document was meant to defend, and placed there to reinforce this regardless of what the State did or did not do.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights, as adopted, only applied to the federal government. Thus, until 1833, the constitution of Massachusetts provided for the financial support of the Congregational Church.
 
The Bill of Rights, as adopted, only applied to the federal government. Thus, until 1833, the constitution of Massachusetts provided for the financial support of the Congregational Church.
Click to expand...

Because of what, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" ? Indeed it seems in that light that the 1st amendment could possibly be seen that way, as it specifically targets Congress -

The Constitution (And Bill of Rights) were ratified by the States, and the States were bound to it just as the Federal government was. This is also noted in the preamble of the Bill of Rights when it was ratified (bold text is my own emphasis) on Dec 15, 1791:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article 6 in the Constitution states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I'm not seeing anything here that suggests States are not bound by the Bill of Rights in any way.
 
The Constitution (And Bill of Rights) were ratified by the States, and the States were bound to it just as the Federal government was.
Click to expand...
No, the States requested and ratified the USBOR with the intent of binding the US, not themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top