nationwide concealed carry permit

The Full Faith and Credit clause should be squeezed to make national reciprocity accepted without need for a law.
Click to expand...

Not like it hasn't been tried, can't get the Senate to look at it, even if could still get through the House. Maybe if we get an Obamessiah, he'll sign it.
 
STAGE 2 said:
If you are asking that question then you fundamentally misunderstand the constitution. The constitution is a limited grant of power. Thus its not the case that you can do something as long as its not prohibited, its that you can't do something unless it is expressly listed.

So the question then is, under what authority could congress pass such a law.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. The matter is surely up to interpretation.

And I don't fundamentally misunderstand the constitution, but thanks for asking. ;)

Article 1, Section 8 Enumerates the following powers to Congress:
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Click to expand...


The following is prohibited by Article 1, Section 9:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Click to expand...


So - the trick to a national carry law would be to justify it somehow under Section 8.

Reading section 9, nothing seems to prohibit the issuance of a national carry law, but I am not a lawyer.

Thanks for the discussion.
 
Simply approach it as a 2A issue. States banning carry or making it inaccessible for the general public through taxes, fees or other discriminatory restrictions are unconstitutional. Full faith and credit will apply to the permits issued by any state.
 
So - the trick to a national carry law would be to justify it somehow under Section 8.
Click to expand...

When you have to 'trick' something into being constitutional, you have your answer before the question has even been asked.
 
Like the speed limit, congress says you can go "up to" a certain speed on the highway, but states can pretty much choose the speed to set.
Click to expand...

The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974 did not set a national speed limit. The law stated that any state that failed to 'voluntarily' adopt a state maximum speed limit of 55 would not received federal highway funds. Congress had no power under the Constitution to establish a national speed limit, but it did have power under the commerce clause to allocate federal funds to the states as it saw fit.

States are allowed to pass laws that are stricter than the federal requirements, but not less strict.
Click to expand...

Please cite a source for this conclusion.
 
Please cite a source for this conclusion.
Click to expand...

The answer is that "it depends". If the area of law is one in which the federal government intends to preempt everything then no the states cannot legislate. If its an area in which they dont, then yes states can place more stringent standards than federal.
 
Reading section 9, nothing seems to prohibit the issuance of a national carry law.
Click to expand...

That is not how it works ... instead of looking for a prohibition in section 9, you need to look for a delegation in section 8.

When you have to 'trick' something into being constitutional, you have your answer
Click to expand...

I agree. Results oriented constructions of the US Constitution suck.
 
The biggest problem with a national concealed carry law is that whatever Congress gives, Congress can also take away. At least with 50 states laws, we won't we surprised by an unexpected midnight vote that takes away concealed carry across the entire nation. However, national concealed carry that grew out of a Constitutional right would be a different matter.
 
This is what I said at first.... on the face of it it sounds great...

but if you give congress (federal government) the power to do this then it seems logical to me you've also given them the power to take it and any other gun 'rights' away....

I'm much more comfortable fighting with my state legislators and their idiot ideals than ever trying to convince the whole group of even more political morons to do something like this....
 
I think a national carry law could easily be written, and "squeezed" into constitutionality under the commerce provisions. And yes, I acknowledge the feelings on the board about that. Unfortunately, reality already squeezes stretches and distorts the commerce clause in ways the founders undoubtedly never imagined. The recent arguments about wetlands and restitution by the federal government over this regulation prove this beyond a doubt.
I would argue that current regulations forcing particular "safety" features by some states could be struck down as limiting commerce between states. I also think that uncertainty about regulations from state to state also have this effect, and could be used as an argument for creating a "maximum" regulation standard.
The Heller decision may have a profound effect on this, and I asked the question as speculation on what the next step may be.
Yes, I am a liberal. and yes, part of that belief is that I do feel that government is the place to redress grievances like this. It may be a terrible way to do it, but its the best way we have.
Thank you for your responses. I was hoping for some thought provoking discussion about what you feel your responsibilities are when in comes to concealed carry, and what you could live with in terms of regulation.
Some regulation is inevitable.
We need to work on what we can live with, and what is necessary.
 
I think a national carry law could easily be written, and "squeezed" into constitutionality under the commerce provisions. And yes, I acknowledge the feelings on the board about that. Unfortunately, reality already squeezes stretches and distorts the commerce clause in ways the founders undoubtedly never imagined.
Click to expand...

Becoming what we are fighting against to try and win make us lose no matter what the outcome.

People who respect the constitution don't "squeeze" things in.
 
Becoming what we are fighting against to try and win make us lose no matter what the outcome.

People who respect the constitution don't "squeeze" things in.
Click to expand...

Whoa, it isn't squeezing, this IS, at last, actually an instance of real interstate activity affecting commerce directly, not some theoretical effect. The commerce clause is the free trade pact of the Constitution. This is an area where Congress providing regularity under the laws wouldn't be a stretch of their authority. Just because the commerce clause has been much abused does not make this instance an abuse.
 
Whoa, it isn't squeezing, this IS, at last, actually an instance of real interstate activity affecting commerce directly
Click to expand...

No its not. Someone being able to carry a pistol concealed has nothing to with interstate commerce, at least not as it was intended. Any effect it would have is so far attenuated it becomes irrelevant.
 
I think you should be able to carry anywhere you have the right to self defense (which is evcerywhere), with the following exceptions:

Court rooms, prison visiting areas, and other places where the presence of too many or unaccounted for arms come in close proximity to known criminals or alleged criminals.
 
Quote:
Whoa, it isn't squeezing, this IS, at last, actually an instance of real interstate activity affecting commerce directly
Click to expand...
No its not. Someone being able to carry a pistol concealed has nothing to with interstate commerce, at least not as it was intended. Any effect it would have is so far attenuated it becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, we're talking about interstate activity where people are now able to travel and spend money interstate that they otherwise wouldn't, not eating bread baked from wheat grown in your own field for your own use and which was never sold.
 
Nonsense, we're talking about interstate activity where people are now able to travel and spend money interstate that they otherwise wouldn't, not eating bread baked from wheat grown in your own field for your own use and which was never sold.
Click to expand...

Nonsense yourself. There is nothing to suggest that people who carry do so expressly to cross state lines. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that being able to carry a gun would encourage people to travel across state lines. I don't know about you but I've never planned a vacation or a business trip based on where I could carry.

Finally and most importantly, carrying a gun has NO bearing on whether people spend money or engage in commerce in another state. It doesn't facilitate anything or encourage anything other than the ability to protect yourself, which has nothing to do with commerce.

Sorry, but the commerce clause was written to allow the federal government to regulate the channels of commerce between the states. Carrying a gun has nothing to do with channels of commerce. In the words of another member here, your gunnykins are not more important than any other part of the constitution. Its an all or none deal. Either you respect the constitution or you don't. Obliterating one part to support another part only weakens it as a whole.
 
Nonsense yourself. There is nothing to suggest that people who carry do so expressly to cross state lines. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that being able to carry a gun would encourage people to travel across state lines. I don't know about you but I've never planned a vacation or a business trip based on where I could carry.
Click to expand...

Well, if it's not important to you then there's possible legislative basis for it. As I was responding specifically to a basis for national OOS recognition for each states' permits then the only issue it would be important to is travel. If people travel they are as sure as the sun rises going to spend money doing so. Bread. of which no component has ever moved in interstate commerce, is what has no effect on commerce, yet that decision is what the entire commerce clause jurisprudence is based on. Travel is commerce, interstate travel is interstate commerce. This is not too hard to comprehend.
 
Travel is commerce, interstate travel is interstate commerce. This is not too hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

It is because you keep ignoring the crucial issue here. Specifically the fact that carrying a gun is not essential to travel, does not facilitate travel, or is related to travel in any way. Thus no nexus to commerce.
 
Thread: nationwide concealed carry permit

As a 26 year law enforcement officer I believe its unreal to issue a carry permit then limit where the firearm can be carried.
Since most schools do NOT permit law abiding citizens to carry firearms those seeking to commit a crime have card blanche to kill, assault and mane on those properties. Why, they know they will do as much damage as possible to law abiding citizens. That is why there are so many school shootings. Its open season on schools....hello....anyone see what is going on?
The laws MUST be repealed and rewritten to allow the carrying of a firearm if one has the ability to carry a firearm on their person.
I don't recall ever hearing criminals obey laws....only law abiding citizens comply with the laws.
Only dumb fools restrict when and where you are allowed to carry a weapon.
Even retired police officers cannot carry firearms on school property or any other property where those fools limit or prohibit the carrying of firearms.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
AJ

PS: I just found this site today....I saw a Judge from Rockland that denied a person the number of guns they own in their own home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top