National Right to Carry Bill
- Thread starter WSM MAGNUM
- Start date
Redworm: That's not gonna happen until/unless the Supreme Court incorporates the 2a into the 14th. I won't be holding my breath on that one. As it stands, the 2A only applies to the Federal Government. Which brings me to...
Samurai: Pretty close. I do believe that no right is absolute. In the case of the 2A, I believe the Feds should apply strict scrutiny to any law that would touch upon citizens and their guns. Just as they do with (most) Free Speech issues (see BCRA - the Court failed here).
COMITY - A code of etiquette that governs the interactions of courts in different states, localities and foreign countries. Courts generally agree to defer scheduling a trial if the same issues are being tried in a court in another jurisdiction. In addition, courts in this country agree to recognize and enforce the valid legal contracts and court orders of other countries.
Licenses and permits apply only to the jurisdiction where it was issued/approved. There is no comity for one state to accept or even acknowledge such a permit or license, outside of marriage/divorce or custody enforcement.
Drivers licenses and CCW permits are on the same order as Commercial Construction licenses/permits. They are valid only under the issuing authority (usually a State) and do not have to be recognized by another State.
In the case of your Drivers License and vehicle registrations, there were reciprocating agreements made between the various States, starting in the early 20th century. This is the same process that is currently going on with respect to CCW permits.
And just like Drivers Licenses, if you drive in another State, you had better be aware of that States traffic laws. Your ignorance will not get you out of the ticket!
Samurai: Pretty close. I do believe that no right is absolute. In the case of the 2A, I believe the Feds should apply strict scrutiny to any law that would touch upon citizens and their guns. Just as they do with (most) Free Speech issues (see BCRA - the Court failed here).
COMITY - A code of etiquette that governs the interactions of courts in different states, localities and foreign countries. Courts generally agree to defer scheduling a trial if the same issues are being tried in a court in another jurisdiction. In addition, courts in this country agree to recognize and enforce the valid legal contracts and court orders of other countries.
Licenses and permits apply only to the jurisdiction where it was issued/approved. There is no comity for one state to accept or even acknowledge such a permit or license, outside of marriage/divorce or custody enforcement.
Drivers licenses and CCW permits are on the same order as Commercial Construction licenses/permits. They are valid only under the issuing authority (usually a State) and do not have to be recognized by another State.
In the case of your Drivers License and vehicle registrations, there were reciprocating agreements made between the various States, starting in the early 20th century. This is the same process that is currently going on with respect to CCW permits.
And just like Drivers Licenses, if you drive in another State, you had better be aware of that States traffic laws. Your ignorance will not get you out of the ticket!
The way I'm reading this is if lets say SC offers a CWP, then they have to honor every other states CWP. States that do not have CWP's won't be effected. If SC drops their CWP, or changes it to a "May issue" state that revokes everyone's CWP, they won't have to honor any other states. Anyhow, this bill will die, so lets not get our hopes up.
WSM MAGNUM
New member
Antipitas, then it sounds to me this "comity" clause is not what the national carry bill falls under. I`m not sure. 
Like I said above, I think we need to find out exactly what is in this bill.
I certainly agree with that. The U.S. Constitution grants no Rights, the U.S. Constitution guarantees your Rights; and the only Rights that exist are individual Rights. Why must I get a permit from the government to carry a
weapon? I will never accept permission from the government to exercise any Right. My Rights are not negotiable. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is just as non-negotiable as any other
Amendment. When was the last time that you got a permit from the government to go to
church, make a statement in public or write a letter to the press? A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by
that instrument.
Like I said above, I think we need to find out exactly what is in this bill. I certainly agree with that. The U.S. Constitution grants no Rights, the U.S. Constitution guarantees your Rights; and the only Rights that exist are individual Rights. Why must I get a permit from the government to carry a
weapon? I will never accept permission from the government to exercise any Right. My Rights are not negotiable. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is just as non-negotiable as any other
Amendment. When was the last time that you got a permit from the government to go to
church, make a statement in public or write a letter to the press? A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by
that instrument.
jkkimberfan
New member
Federal or State
Whether a Federal or State solution, whatever works is BEST! The more CCW holders, the quicker this number swells, the more political power we have. If this CCW law passes, it will immediately add hundreds of thousands of CCW holders. The more citizens who obtain a CCW, the more power we will have and the less power the Democrats will have to take them away! I will take any law that increases CCW numbers.
Whether a Federal or State solution, whatever works is BEST! The more CCW holders, the quicker this number swells, the more political power we have. If this CCW law passes, it will immediately add hundreds of thousands of CCW holders. The more citizens who obtain a CCW, the more power we will have and the less power the Democrats will have to take them away! I will take any law that increases CCW numbers.
SixForSure
New member
+1. Just in case you have forgotten, John Thune is the one that defeated Tom Dasch-hole.
Both the Senate version (S. 388) and House version (H.R. 226) are identical and are short and simple:
In simple language, it allows for out-of-state permit holders to carry in any other State, provided that you abide by that States concealed carry laws. If however, you find yourself in a State that does not allow for CCW, then you are still allowed to carry but are restricted from carrying in the places I underlined in (b)(2) above.
However, there is nothing in the language that refers to any grant of authority, other than the vague reference to the Commerce Clause. And that will be the stumbling block. One would presume that this would never get out of committee because of this. But, let's assume for the moment that it not only gets out of committee, but (for the sake of argument) also passes both the House and the Senate and is signed into law.
What do you suppose is going to happen?
Every State that does not provide for CCW, will immediately sue the Feds for an unconstitutional violation of that States police powers. Every State that provides a CCW (shall issue or may issue) but does not recognize any other permit (no reciprocity) will sue the Feds on the same grounds. Still other States that don't provide reciprocity with certain other States (based upon inadequate training/licensing procedures) will also sue.
In the end, we might very well see just about all of the 50 States suing for 10th amendment violation. In light of Raich and Oregon, it may be a crap-shoot. Except, now we have a majority of States (Deep Pockets) going against the Feds (also Deep Pockets). The combined might of the individual States vs. the might of the Federal Government. This is one that I believe the Courts will overturn, just to keep the peace. How the Courts do this, without lessoning the power grab of Raich is gonna be interesting!
Back to reality.
It ain't gonna get out of committee.
That's pretty much it.
In simple language, it allows for out-of-state permit holders to carry in any other State, provided that you abide by that States concealed carry laws. If however, you find yourself in a State that does not allow for CCW, then you are still allowed to carry but are restricted from carrying in the places I underlined in (b)(2) above.
However, there is nothing in the language that refers to any grant of authority, other than the vague reference to the Commerce Clause. And that will be the stumbling block. One would presume that this would never get out of committee because of this. But, let's assume for the moment that it not only gets out of committee, but (for the sake of argument) also passes both the House and the Senate and is signed into law.
What do you suppose is going to happen?
Every State that does not provide for CCW, will immediately sue the Feds for an unconstitutional violation of that States police powers. Every State that provides a CCW (shall issue or may issue) but does not recognize any other permit (no reciprocity) will sue the Feds on the same grounds. Still other States that don't provide reciprocity with certain other States (based upon inadequate training/licensing procedures) will also sue.
In the end, we might very well see just about all of the 50 States suing for 10th amendment violation. In light of Raich and Oregon, it may be a crap-shoot. Except, now we have a majority of States (Deep Pockets) going against the Feds (also Deep Pockets). The combined might of the individual States vs. the might of the Federal Government. This is one that I believe the Courts will overturn, just to keep the peace. How the Courts do this, without lessoning the power grab of Raich is gonna be interesting!
Back to reality.
It ain't gonna get out of committee.
WSM MAGNUM
New member
In my opinion, they have no grounds to sue. As I said earlier, I believe all state and federal firearm laws are void to begin with. They are arguing laws that are repugnent to the Constitution.
WSM, it doesn't much matter what you (or I) believe. What matters is how the Courts interpret the Law. Under our system of law, it is presumed that any act passed by the Legislature (and signed into law by the Executive), is lawful until the Court says it isn't.
Back to reality, again.
As I said, this just ain't gonna happen. It will die in committee.
Back to reality, again.
As I said, this just ain't gonna happen. It will die in committee.
Antipas:
Yeah, I think you're right there. Still, wouldn't it be cool if it was just accepted.
Yeah, you're probably right. But still, wouldn't it be cool if it DID!
And, I think we'd have a pretty good argument for the Feds to claim original jurisdiction through the 2nd. Even if the 2nd Amendment isn't articulated in the Bill, the Courts could still invoke it to validate the law.
Remember, it ain't over until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on it!
Yeah, I think you're right there. Still, wouldn't it be cool if it was just accepted.
Yeah, you're probably right. But still, wouldn't it be cool if it DID!
And, I think we'd have a pretty good argument for the Feds to claim original jurisdiction through the 2nd. Even if the 2nd Amendment isn't articulated in the Bill, the Courts could still invoke it to validate the law.
Remember, it ain't over until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on it!
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
``(2) OTHER LIMITATIONS- If a State other than the State that issued the license or permit described in subsection (a) does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may not, in that State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by that State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by the law of that State.'.
That's absolute BS in this section.
1. It is a step backwards in trying to allow teachers to carry
2. It may kill carry in many restaurants
etc.
Rather not have this.
That's absolute BS in this section.
1. It is a step backwards in trying to allow teachers to carry
2. It may kill carry in many restaurants
etc.
Rather not have this.
WSM MAGNUM
New member
It does matter. All the laws that infringe upon our gun rights that were passed and signed into law have no power over the Constitution. It is so, because we allow it. You said it yourself; it is presumed that any act passed by the Legislature (and signed into law by the Executive), is lawful until the Court says it isn't.
So what ya gonna do? Break the law? Be a test case? And if (or when) you loose, you will be just another felon nursing a grudge.
I would much rather see more States follow the lead of Maine and Montana and stand up to the feds in that manner... Power in numbers, ya know.
I would much rather see more States follow the lead of Maine and Montana and stand up to the feds in that manner... Power in numbers, ya know.
WSM MAGNUM
New member
So would I. I just wish that every gun owner in the U.S. would do that. It`s sad that once a law passes, most gun owners shrug it off. It seems more time is spent lobbying before a bill passes, rather than repealing it.