National Concealed Carry Law
- Thread starter deanf
- Start date
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
The feds can give orders to the states, but the 10th Amendment sez the feds gotta pay for it.
That's why the background check part of Brady was held un-Constitutional--it was an unfunded mandate.
That's why the background check part of Brady was held un-Constitutional--it was an unfunded mandate.
No, the 10th says that powers not specifically reserved to the Federal Government by the Constitution, or prohibited to the States by the Constitution, are reserved for the States or the People.
It does not give the Feds the authority to order the States about, as long as it's paid for.
It does not give the Feds the authority to order the States about, as long as it's paid for.
Rob Pincus
New member
The 10th Amendment, to my understanding, gives all the rights NOT reserved by the previous amendments to the states. Since the 2nd Amendment deals with the right to keep and bear arms, I see guns as being the domain of the Federal Gov't... for better or worse.
National CCW which overuled state authority to violate the 2nd Amendment would be a step in the right direction, I think.
If I am missing something, let me know.
------------------
-Essayons
National CCW which overuled state authority to violate the 2nd Amendment would be a step in the right direction, I think.
If I am missing something, let me know.
------------------
-Essayons
deanf,
It's hard for the states to get along without federal funds when the Infernal Revenue Service robs the states' citizens of 15% to 75% of what they earn.
rob = v. to take by force or threat of force.
15-75% = If you count hidden taxes, compound taxes, franchise fees, etc. 75% may be closer to the mark that we realize...
-------
Rob,
Like you, I tend to believe a national CCW might be a good thing. Then, I remember that ANY licensing scheme is an infringement supposedly prohibited by the Second Amendment and I end up running around in circles between "take what you can get, then try for more" and "no compromise".
Help me out on this:
1) If there are federal requirements for a national CCW, isn't that an infringement?
2) If there are NO federal requirements, then why would a license of any kind be required?
3) Could we just let each state determine which other states CCW shall be recognized? That's an infringement too! Argh!
I would most like to see the Second Amendment enforced, ie NO infringement. If we can't get that, them maybe we should copy our enemies tactics and "salami-slice" our way to victory by having THEM compromise to OUR outlandish and repeated demands.
Voting for unwavering Second Amendment candidates would seem to be a good start. Surely better than a bloody revolution or total tyranny.
It's hard for the states to get along without federal funds when the Infernal Revenue Service robs the states' citizens of 15% to 75% of what they earn.
rob = v. to take by force or threat of force.
15-75% = If you count hidden taxes, compound taxes, franchise fees, etc. 75% may be closer to the mark that we realize...
-------
Rob,
Like you, I tend to believe a national CCW might be a good thing. Then, I remember that ANY licensing scheme is an infringement supposedly prohibited by the Second Amendment and I end up running around in circles between "take what you can get, then try for more" and "no compromise".
Help me out on this:
1) If there are federal requirements for a national CCW, isn't that an infringement?
2) If there are NO federal requirements, then why would a license of any kind be required?
3) Could we just let each state determine which other states CCW shall be recognized? That's an infringement too! Argh!
I would most like to see the Second Amendment enforced, ie NO infringement. If we can't get that, them maybe we should copy our enemies tactics and "salami-slice" our way to victory by having THEM compromise to OUR outlandish and repeated demands.
Voting for unwavering Second Amendment candidates would seem to be a good start. Surely better than a bloody revolution or total tyranny.
Rob Pincus
New member
Here is the thing, unless there are Federal Laws to protect our rights (think about this before you verbally bitch-slap me) then states can go about willy-nilly deciding whether or not to let us carry.
Yes, the best thing would be actually going by the wording of the 2nd Amendment and leave it at that. BUT, reality is that a National CCW law OR a National Reciprocity law could be a lot better than what we have now.. especially if you currently live in the 20 or so states where it is impossible or might as well be impossible to get a CCW permit.
------------------
-Essayons
Yes, the best thing would be actually going by the wording of the 2nd Amendment and leave it at that. BUT, reality is that a National CCW law OR a National Reciprocity law could be a lot better than what we have now.. especially if you currently live in the 20 or so states where it is impossible or might as well be impossible to get a CCW permit.
------------------
-Essayons
Rob,
"bitch-slap"?
I understand the value of standardization. No problem, Rob. What I was trying to express (with some difficulty!!) was that MY goal would be to have the federal government forcing the states to let people carry open or concealed without any registration (of people OR firearms). That would satisfy my sense of the Second Amendment completely.
Never work! Yeah, I know. Pipe dreams.
So then I go to the "take what you can get" mode and end up roughly where your last statement recommends.
What I think is correct or "Right" is so far from what we have any chance of getting it kind of puts me in a quandry.
So, perhaps the best approach is as you advocate, IF (capitalized & emboldened) we follow up that success with more demands and salami slice our way toward the true sense of the Second Amendment.
I'm not fighting you on this. I realize we must start somewhere. I just don't want a national CCW to end up being a federal registration of all citizens (national ID card) and/or a registration of firearms (any firearms of any type, anywhere).
And I'm not real comfortable with CHL "registration" - even though I am so registered! So I've "compromised" too. And it is a constant source of a bit of shame. However, I "took what I could get" to reduce the danger of spending years in the barbed-wire hotel!
Because of fear (so that makes me a coward in some peoples opinion) and to lessen the legal dangers to my family.
Compromise is ugly - but sometimes you gotta play the hand you're dealt. Let's see, Rob, who says it's better to go to jail/prison and not support your family than to compromise.
If we must improve our position incrementally, I may be able to support SOME of those efforts.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 01, 1999).]
"bitch-slap"?
I understand the value of standardization. No problem, Rob. What I was trying to express (with some difficulty!!) was that MY goal would be to have the federal government forcing the states to let people carry open or concealed without any registration (of people OR firearms). That would satisfy my sense of the Second Amendment completely.
Never work! Yeah, I know. Pipe dreams.
So then I go to the "take what you can get" mode and end up roughly where your last statement recommends.
What I think is correct or "Right" is so far from what we have any chance of getting it kind of puts me in a quandry.
So, perhaps the best approach is as you advocate, IF (capitalized & emboldened) we follow up that success with more demands and salami slice our way toward the true sense of the Second Amendment.
I'm not fighting you on this. I realize we must start somewhere. I just don't want a national CCW to end up being a federal registration of all citizens (national ID card) and/or a registration of firearms (any firearms of any type, anywhere).
And I'm not real comfortable with CHL "registration" - even though I am so registered! So I've "compromised" too. And it is a constant source of a bit of shame. However, I "took what I could get" to reduce the danger of spending years in the barbed-wire hotel!
Because of fear (so that makes me a coward in some peoples opinion) and to lessen the legal dangers to my family.Compromise is ugly - but sometimes you gotta play the hand you're dealt. Let's see, Rob, who says it's better to go to jail/prison and not support your family than to compromise.
If we must improve our position incrementally, I may be able to support SOME of those efforts.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 01, 1999).]
Rob Pincus
New member
I think we are closer on this than first glance would've made it look.
Let me put it this way: If and When I am forced to violate a gun law, it'll be big. It is easy enough for me to comply with the current CCW law in my state, so I do. It is easy enough for me to live without jumping through the hoops to get a silencer or a machine gun, so I do. But, when the time comes that I am expected to give up some of what I've got (hello California?), or I am somehow further oppressed as a gunowner, then you will not see a similar attitude towards compromise.
Compromise in the right direction (national CCW- to alleviate the impossibility of CCW in NJ, OH, IL, etc...) is radically different in my mind from compromise in the wrong direction (okay, you can have my Mini-14....).
[This message has been edited by Rob (edited July 01, 1999).]
Let me put it this way: If and When I am forced to violate a gun law, it'll be big. It is easy enough for me to comply with the current CCW law in my state, so I do. It is easy enough for me to live without jumping through the hoops to get a silencer or a machine gun, so I do. But, when the time comes that I am expected to give up some of what I've got (hello California?), or I am somehow further oppressed as a gunowner, then you will not see a similar attitude towards compromise.
Compromise in the right direction (national CCW- to alleviate the impossibility of CCW in NJ, OH, IL, etc...) is radically different in my mind from compromise in the wrong direction (okay, you can have my Mini-14....).
[This message has been edited by Rob (edited July 01, 1999).]
National speed limit and drinking age are not really federal laws--the states bend over (words carefully chosen here) and de facto surrender to the Feds because a SPENDING bill has strings attached. That's okay, says the Supreme Court.
Feds saying "local LEOs, you SHALL conduct this background check for every dealer-based gun sale to consumer" is not okay. 10th Amendment finally was used to curb fed power-grabbing.
But the difficult thing is interstate commerce. Congress can do what it wants--even criminalize conduct only remotely related to it (I don't necessarily agree). The no felons in possession of a gun fed law applies only to guns which have traveled in interstate commerce. No guns in school zones was also for those guns having moved in interstate commerce, but there was too little connection between the commerce of gun sales and the evil activity of possessing a lethal instrument too close to hallowed ground.
Except for land the feds own, they really don't have much power to criminalize conduct. FBI and kidnapping, for example, are connected because of a fictional presumption that any kidnapper is headed for the next state--interstate commerce is again implicated, I guess. Bank robbery because of the interstate federal reserve system maybe (but that's private?).
The big problem is in whether the 14th Amendment applies to all of the Bill of Rights. We have contemporaneous writings indicating that it was supposed to, to keep former slave states from oppressing newly-emancipated slaves with regard to "national" citizenship matters.
Though the courts have been demonically silent on the 2nd A., they have pretty much said the 14th A. keeps states from violating 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment rights (cruel & unusual punishment) and a few others. It's not just the odd-numbered ones. The rights to grand jury indictment and jury trial in civil cases from the Bill of Rights have been ruled on and supposedly don't apply to the states.
So, chances are that CA courts and the freewheeling 9th Circuit will eventually rule that the 2nd A. restricts only the feds and does not apply to the states by virtue of the 14th. I have strong reasons to believe that would be wrong morally, legally, and politically (objective reality politics, not popularity among ignorant masses political).
Now, if Congress wants to pass a *law* protecting certain rights of national citizenship, thereby mandating full faith and credit to CCW permits between and among the states, that might work. Even if they don't do it under the legislative enforcement authority of the 14th Amendment, they could do it under the commerce clause, linking the law with some silly theory of people traveling between states.
Or, they could just withhold federal funds from states who don't pass "model" legislation granting reciprocity, and watch the fools fall all over themselves to snuggle up to the public nipple.
Personally, I think it's more of a full faith and credit thing that doesn't even require a law. Keeping (owning and having at home) and bearing (being able to actually carry them outside the home) arms is a fundamental right, pre-existing the formation of any government, which the 2nd Amendment only protects. The 2nd A. does not "give" us the right! It is fundamental because it is to inextricably connected to the very right to life itself, which unavoidably includes the right to preserve that life against unprovoked threats.
The guy or gal who provokes a fight with a deadly weapon, however, just voluntarily gave up the right to life. You might call it an inherent occupational hazard of being a criminal.
Feds saying "local LEOs, you SHALL conduct this background check for every dealer-based gun sale to consumer" is not okay. 10th Amendment finally was used to curb fed power-grabbing.
But the difficult thing is interstate commerce. Congress can do what it wants--even criminalize conduct only remotely related to it (I don't necessarily agree). The no felons in possession of a gun fed law applies only to guns which have traveled in interstate commerce. No guns in school zones was also for those guns having moved in interstate commerce, but there was too little connection between the commerce of gun sales and the evil activity of possessing a lethal instrument too close to hallowed ground.
Except for land the feds own, they really don't have much power to criminalize conduct. FBI and kidnapping, for example, are connected because of a fictional presumption that any kidnapper is headed for the next state--interstate commerce is again implicated, I guess. Bank robbery because of the interstate federal reserve system maybe (but that's private?).
The big problem is in whether the 14th Amendment applies to all of the Bill of Rights. We have contemporaneous writings indicating that it was supposed to, to keep former slave states from oppressing newly-emancipated slaves with regard to "national" citizenship matters.
Though the courts have been demonically silent on the 2nd A., they have pretty much said the 14th A. keeps states from violating 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment rights (cruel & unusual punishment) and a few others. It's not just the odd-numbered ones. The rights to grand jury indictment and jury trial in civil cases from the Bill of Rights have been ruled on and supposedly don't apply to the states.
So, chances are that CA courts and the freewheeling 9th Circuit will eventually rule that the 2nd A. restricts only the feds and does not apply to the states by virtue of the 14th. I have strong reasons to believe that would be wrong morally, legally, and politically (objective reality politics, not popularity among ignorant masses political).
Now, if Congress wants to pass a *law* protecting certain rights of national citizenship, thereby mandating full faith and credit to CCW permits between and among the states, that might work. Even if they don't do it under the legislative enforcement authority of the 14th Amendment, they could do it under the commerce clause, linking the law with some silly theory of people traveling between states.
Or, they could just withhold federal funds from states who don't pass "model" legislation granting reciprocity, and watch the fools fall all over themselves to snuggle up to the public nipple.
Personally, I think it's more of a full faith and credit thing that doesn't even require a law. Keeping (owning and having at home) and bearing (being able to actually carry them outside the home) arms is a fundamental right, pre-existing the formation of any government, which the 2nd Amendment only protects. The 2nd A. does not "give" us the right! It is fundamental because it is to inextricably connected to the very right to life itself, which unavoidably includes the right to preserve that life against unprovoked threats.
The guy or gal who provokes a fight with a deadly weapon, however, just voluntarily gave up the right to life. You might call it an inherent occupational hazard of being a criminal.
Rob,
Our goals, I believe, are identical.
I now understand what you're driving at, "(national CCW- to alleviate the impossibility of CCW in NJ, OH, IL, etc...)".
However, rather than giving the feds that authority (to grant, not to grant CCW, establish requirements, exceptions, transgressions, punishments, another entire bureaucracy, etc.), I would rather force our national legislature to pass a law saying just exactly what you are looking for, ie. responsible people of good character may comply with the Second Amendment without infringements!
That would let all of us carry in any manner, anywhere, in all fifty states.
Hell, if we ask for the whole enchilada (like HCI does)
we can always "compromise" (like HCI does)
and then come back and fight again for the rest of it (like HCI does).
((PS. I only know of ONE political party that might do that for us. Guess who!))
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 02, 1999).]
Our goals, I believe, are identical.
I now understand what you're driving at, "(national CCW- to alleviate the impossibility of CCW in NJ, OH, IL, etc...)".
However, rather than giving the feds that authority (to grant, not to grant CCW, establish requirements, exceptions, transgressions, punishments, another entire bureaucracy, etc.), I would rather force our national legislature to pass a law saying just exactly what you are looking for, ie. responsible people of good character may comply with the Second Amendment without infringements!
That would let all of us carry in any manner, anywhere, in all fifty states.
Hell, if we ask for the whole enchilada (like HCI does)
we can always "compromise" (like HCI does)
and then come back and fight again for the rest of it (like HCI does).
((PS. I only know of ONE political party that might do that for us. Guess who!))
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 02, 1999).]