National Right To Carry Reciprocity

[pocketgun]

Handy, I think we are not going to reach a mutual accord on the law as originally worded. I still don't understand how it treats everyone as unequal - plenty of people in non-CCW states (or ones that are for all intents and purposes the same thing) still have no right to carry a firearm for defense. The situation is therefore already decidedly unequal. Should crossing a state border somehow magically change people's right to survive?

It seems to me this is a debate over whether the will of state governments should have the ability to override the individual right to self-defense of US citizens. I say no, you say yes. I would prefer a plain language demand enforcing the 2A, but the time is not here yet for that - hopefully that day will come soon. It certainly would not be cause to stop pushing.

You guys keep talking about how CCL is a right, then treating it as anything but. If you believe it is a right, demand a bill stating that. Reciprocity only enforces the illusion that carry is a priveledge to be licensed to those with the right influence or zip code. This bill does not promote general freedom, it divides us into have and have-nots.

No, that is not what I am doing. Stubbornly defying the law will not go far in service of the cause - a jail or prison sentence will only serve to take away what rights I have that are not already under (full on) siege. Sorry, I am not going to serve as a martyr for the cause.

This bill would allow for CCW in non-CCW states, at least in a limited form. I think that is a good thing, but I agree, more is needed. Sure, I will demand a bill stating CCW is a right - nothing new there. We didn't have this right taken away all at once, and we won't get it back all at once either.

The only other real way that I see, would be if the Congress were to pass a law that simply gave reciprocation to States that already had permits. The travelor would then be bound to the lws of the State in which he passed through or in which he visited. A State that had no permits, would not have to participate. That would most likely pass Judicial Review.

So if this were the way the final law was worded, would it meet with your approval Handy? IMO, it would still be a step in the right direction, albeit a smaller one. Note that it would grant non-residents the ability to CCW in areas of some states where getting a permit is all but impossible for a normal citizen. Should the political ambitions of a county Sheriff also trump Constitutional rights of citizens?

 

[Handy]

Pocket,

Again, you miss that all laws are centered on territory, and not people. Carry laws don't stop certain people from carrying, they stop ALL people from carrying in certain places.

You are proposing we stop making laws about places and start making them about people.

Right now we can both carry in VA, but not WI. You want to change the law so some US citizens can carry in WI, but not WI citizens. So then we can both carry in VA and WI, but a WI guy can still only carry in VA.

It seems to me this is a debate over whether the will of state governments should have the ability to override the individual right to self-defense of US citizens. I say no, you say yes.

No, I DID NOT. I'm saying that your individual wish to carry everywhere shouldn't override that collective right.


Nor was I proposing you make a test case of yourself. I was proposing that you forgoe support of an unjust bill and risk having to travel into the warzone of Wisconsin unarmed until such a time as ALL citizens have the right to carry there.


As for Antipitas's proposal, I believe I already commented on it. But, again, you are forcing states to accept the sometimes crappy licensing procedure of another state. I don't think there should be a licensing procedure at all, but if there is, shouldn't the federal law establish it, rather than just jam Mississippi's policies down Virginia's throat?


This will never make sense to me as it tells states to accept other states guidelines, but takes no responsibility for how that works. Just write a damn federal law and be done with it.


For the record, I very much doubt SCOTUS would support this law. 14th amendment aside, it is depowering and raises more issues than it solves. It ignores the very principle of jurisdiction.

 

[pocketgun]

Again, you miss that all laws are centered on territory, and not people. Carry laws don't stop certain people from carrying, they stop ALL people from carrying in certain places.

This bill would be a federal law requiring each state to give credit to the others with respect to honoring their CCPs. Their are already laws in many places that allow certain people to carry, and forbid other from doing so, notably LEOs.

Right now we can both carry in VA, but not WI. You want to change the law so some US citizens can carry in WI, but not WI citizens. So then we can both carry in VA and WI, but a WI guy can still only carry in VA.

No, that is not what I want to do. I want to change the law so that you and I can carry in both VA and WI. I am proposing nothing that hinders citizens of WI from carrying in their state. Their absurd state statutes do that - regardless of what happens with this bill. I am not willing to die in solidarity for them. The people of WI need to change their elected officials to regain their right to carry IMO, and I have no way to do that.

No, I DID NOT. I'm saying that your individual wish to carry everywhere shouldn't override that collective right.

How can a person have a "collective right"? You say "no" but it sounds like you mean "yes" when you start using the term "collective" in your answer. Last I checked, you need more than one person for that. "Collective rights" superseding individual rights is exactly what I am saying you are suggesting. Do you believe a person has the individual right to protect his life as granted by the Constitution or not?

Nor was I proposing you make a test case of yourself. I was proposing that you forgoe support of an unjust bill and risk having to travel into the warzone of Wisconsin unarmed until such a time as ALL citizens have the right to carry there.

And if I must go there in the reasonable process of earning a living, who will make my mortgage payments and send my kids to college if I am killed by a criminal while defenseless? Certainly not the state of WI.

But, again, you are forcing states to accept the sometimes crappy licensing procedure of another state. I don't think there should be a licensing procedure at all, but if there is, shouldn't the federal law establish it, rather than just jam Mississippi's policies down Virginia's throat?

This will never make sense to me as it tells states to accept other states guidelines, but takes no responsibility for how that works. Just write a damn federal law and be done with it.

Just when I think I understand you? Yes on the "no licensing", but how could you possibly say you would rather have Federally mandated requirements dictated to each state? Seems like a far more egregious loss of state's rights to me, way worse than this bill could possibly be.

 

[tyme]

Reciprocity is the easy way out.

Reciprocity alone hangs people who live in statist states, or people who have to travel to such places, out to dry. This bill may not be able to help the residents, but it helps the travellers.

If you think national VT-style carry is the way to go, by all means get your congressperson to introduce it. We all know it will go precisely nowhere, at least not for a few years.

The alternative is a federal license to ccw, which might be superior to this but makes me extremely nervous because it enlarges the federal bureaucracy to deal with the new licensing mandate, and effectively puts state licenses out of business. That's both good and bad; it just makes me queasy.

 

[pocketgun]

Reciprocity alone hangs people who live in statist states, or people who have to travel to such places, out to dry. This bill may not be able to help the residents, but it helps the travellers.

If you think national VT-style carry is the way to go, by all means get your congressperson to introduce it. We all know it will go precisely nowhere, at least not for a few years.

The alternative is a federal license to ccw, which might be superior to this but makes me extremely nervous because it enlarges the federal bureaucracy to deal with the new licensing mandate, and effectively puts state licenses out of business. That's both good and bad; it just makes me queasy.

Agree on all points with this one.

 

[Handy]

Collective right, as in; ALL citizens have it, because it is a right.


You have consistently ignored my point that you are perpetuating the priveledge aspect of CCLs by supporting a bill that extends SOME people's priveledge, rather than extending a right to more people.


It is clear you could give a crap about anyone else, or you would be asking if your lack of National CCL will mean that you'll have to help pay for someone else's kids education when they are killed because you did nothing for your country, and only for your own needs.


Congress is there for ALL of us, not your personal pork barrel. I've been speaking about doing something out of principle, and you've only been talking about YOU. I think living in a free society is worth some sacrifice, you're willing to sacrifice some people's freedoms to more easily claim your own.

I find such a view lazy and unAmerican. You don't get justice and real change by doling it out to a select group. That's just a payoff. I very much doubt that you'll lift a finger for anyone after you've gotten yours - as long as YOU are safe in Wisconsin, why care that anyone else have your freedoms?

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Handy-
Dunno if you check hotmail.
You have some.
Rich

 

[gc70]

H.R. 4547 would also apply to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others` carry permits, just as they recognize drivers` licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

Despite all of the heated discussion, who thinks that 12 is the lucky number for this proposed legislation?

 

[pocketgun]

Collective right, as in; ALL citizens have it, because it is a right.


You have consistently ignored my point that you are perpetuating the priveledge aspect of CCLs by supporting a bill that extends SOME people's priveledge, rather than extending a right to more people.


It is clear you could give a crap about anyone else, or you would be asking if your lack of National CCL will mean that you'll have to help pay for someone else's kids education when they are killed because you did nothing for your country, and only for your own needs.


Congress is there for ALL of us, not your personal pork barrel. I've been speaking about doing something out of principle, and you've only been talking about YOU. I think living in a free society is worth some sacrifice, you're willing to sacrifice some people's freedoms to more easily claim your own.

I find such a view lazy and unAmerican. You don't get justice and real change by doling it out to a select group. That's just a payoff. I very much doubt that you'll lift a finger for anyone after you've gotten yours - as long as YOU are safe in Wisconsin, why care that anyone else have your freedoms?

Handy, I don't think what I said merited the personal attack. Since you are clearly too POed to continue, I am going to sign off this thread. Thanks for the discussion to all who participated.

 

[Handy]

It wasn't intended as an attack, but an attempt to bring this home to you, so I apologize. I have been unable to properly communicate the apprehension I feel about using the Federal government to perpetuate and institutionalize the legal disparities between its citizens. I was overly zealous in trying to get you to see that context, and meant no insult.

 

[Little Wolf]

Let me start this post off by saying that I do not, nor would I ever support a national CCW bill. Such a proposal would be not only an egregious assault on our liberties, but it would undoubtedly be an easy gateway towards federal registration and future confiscation. I also am a full believer in the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this country, though I don’t think they limit government enough, they are much better than what we currently have.

With that having been said, I must state that I would enthusiastically support this bill with a few amendments. Now I know everyone is upset over the entire constitutionality aspect, and the perceived encroachment of state’s rights. The first thing I would like to say in regards to this is that states do not have “rights”. Countries do not have rights, nations do not have rights, businesses do not have rights, only individuals have rights! All other entities can only be endowed with powers through the consent of the individuals that comprise them. Now, with that being said let’s examine the state’s powers issue.

Now I’ll be the first to agree with you that the states are supposed to have a lot more power than are currently acknowledged by the federal government. Unfortunately, the power of states took a major blow during the last war for independence (“civil war”) and the issue has been drowning since that fateful war. Now, let’s examine the famous 10th amendment of our bill of rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Great little amendment, one of my favorites for sure. Let’s examine it closely, though. Ok, so we first have to make sure that a power hasn’t already been granted to the federal government. In the case of firearms, the 2nd makes this issue rather clear so we can move on. Next, lets take a look at the following clause, “nor prohibited by it to the states”. So now we need to see if the Constitution is prohibiting the state’s power to take a certain action. Again, we since we are referring to weapons here we need to examine the 2nd amendment of the constitution which all of the states signed onto.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now according to this amendment, an individual’s right to keep (possess) and bear (carry/present on person) shall never be infringed. It does not state that only the federal government shall not infringe, it states that the right is inherent in all men and that it can not be taken away, watered down, or otherwise messed with by other entities. An important fact to note is that the founding fathers considered rights “inalienable” which meant that one could not even choose to give up their rights, a right could never be abridged even upon an individuals wish to enter volentary servitude/slave status.

Now, let’s refer back to this bill here. At present it is not so much about violating state’s powers as it is about taking one step closer toward making sure that state’s respect the individual inalienable right to keep and bear arms, a right which they contractedly agreed to respect upon signing the constitution and joining these United States. This is one step closer toward restoring the 2nd Amendment (which is VT style carry everywhere). Why should I as a citizens of the United States be unable to exercise my second amendment rights because some states at some points unconstitutionally violated their own federal and state constitutions in regards to the keeping and bearing of arms? The answer is I shouldn’t.

The bill isn’t mandating federal requirements over states either, it is simply stating that my license must be respected in any other state. Now, I still have to follow that states unconstitutional rules in regards to concealed carry (except in cases where the states have no CCW, and thus no law, which we’ll get to later) so that is still in effect. And if the state legislator wishes to change their CCW laws, they are still free to do so. However, this is still a step in the right direction.

The only part that concerns me is that whether the federal reciprocity carry restrictions for states that currently don’t issue a CCW license will be opposed on a state like VT that has no such restrictions because they respect the 2nd amendment. Obviously this shouldn’t be, and there should be an amendment that clarifies this. My other small concern is if a state that doesn’t currently issue CCW’s chooses to do so in the future, are they able to establish their own laws in regards to where you can CCW that will override the previous fed provisions. My reading of the bill is that they will, as they don’t fit the previous criteria but there should still be an amendment clarifying it more concisely.

All in all, we are in a war for our rights here, and this would be a major step in helping us restore them. This is one step closer to country wide VT style carry so I urge everyone to support this bill and to contact your congressmen and tell them to support it as well. It’s about time that liberty and our 2nd amendment rights takes a step forward for a change.