Three Ways to CCW Reciprocity

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

There are three (3) different approaches that could be taken to achieve true CCW National Reciprocity, depending on the final version of the law as actually passed:

1. The first approach under federal reciprocity is that CCW permits of any state (just like a person's driver's license or marriage license) shall be recognized and according interstate courtesy in all other states, period.

OR

2. The second approach would hold that any state which refuses reciprocity to other states is 'overridden' by the federal law. In other words, the right to an individual right to be armed for self-defense would be treated as a Constitutional 'fundamental right' equal at least to the fundamental right to marry and the fundamental right to travel, both of which have much case law behind them as Constitutionally protected basic rights.

OR

3. The third approach is what is the slowest and most painful. It's what we're doing now. Seeking state by state reciprocity between each state. That's 50 times 50.

In my opinion, the 2nd approach has the most likelihood of 'sticking' to the books after all of us on this forum are no longer on this planet. I would rather my kids have a 'fundamental right to self-defense' that has equal United States Constitutional protection with the fundamental right to travel and the fundamental right to marry.

What Say You???

 

[FallenPhoenix]

National Reciprocity should be a moot point as it should be assured under, I believe it's called, "Full Faith and Credit". How laws and even the constitution can be utterly ignored at a whim is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Hugh Damright]

I don't see how "full faith and credit" can mean that permits issued in one State must be recognized as valid in other States too. That would seem to mean that a woman in any State could go to Nevada, get a prostitute permit, and then go back to their own State and prostitute.

 

[LAK]

I am not convinced that "full faith and credit" has anything to do with legislated activities. From what I understand it has more to do with administrative practices and records.

Federal law can not simply "override" a State law simply by virtue of being Federal law. Federal law is limited by jurisdiction; on Federal territory, property etc - and in specific and limited matters defined in the U.S. Constitution. So such a Federal law would have legal force in Puerto Rico - or Washington D.C. But not in Greene County, Ohio or in the city of Los Angeles, California.

In other words, the right to an individual right to be armed for self-defense would be treated as a Constitutional 'fundamental right' equal at least to the fundamental right to marry and the fundamental right to travel, both of which have much case law behind them as Constitutionally protected basic rights

This is more like it; but what is required is a SCOTUS ruling. Specifically, that both the "keep" and "bear" within " .... to keep and bear arms ..." apply equally and universally in any public place, highway, park (etc).

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

How Federal Law CAN Trump Local Law

1. If Congress determines to 'occupy the field' - as they have in Immigration Law for example - then Federal law is the only law that applies;

2. If SCOTUS could have a case come before it (without sideline facts) that could allow for a 'Fundamental Right' analysis - then that would also work;

3. 'Full Faith and Credit' has to do with (A) payment of federal debt obligations and (B) recognition of lawsuit judgments from one state being given effect in another;

We need to stop bickering with each other, stop whining and start picking up the phone and sending mail to our elected national representatives in the House and Senate -- essentially DEMANDING our Senators and Congressional Reps become "Co-Sponsors" of National Reciprocity legislation.

Personally, I believe the 'Fundamental Right' analysis is most likely to 'stick' over the coming generations. Several important federal decisions in the area of 'Fundamental Rights' have had far-reaching impact because it caused state rulings and state statutes to be overturned in a single sweep.

While I don't agree with result, a recent example would be the SCOTUS ruling on execution of juvenile offenders. It essentially wipes out all state rulings and statutes that are contrary.

 

[FallenPhoenix]

I don't see how "full faith and credit" can mean that permits issued in one State must be recognized as valid in other States too. That would seem to mean that a woman in any State could go to Nevada, get a prostitute permit, and then go back to their own State and prostitute.

think about how your driver's license works. It's the same regardless of which state you go to.

 

[shaggy]

Federal law is limited by jurisdiction; on Federal territory, property etc - and in specific and limited matters defined in the U.S. Constitution. So such a Federal law would have legal force in Puerto Rico - or Washington D.C. But not in Greene County, Ohio or in the city of Los Angeles, California.

LAK - You'e spouted some innane things before but that about takes the cake. Federal law only applies on federal lands? Oh please...

A few examples...

Possession and transfer of weapons regulated under the NFA - applies anywhere in the United States, on federal, state, or privately owned property.

Chemical & Biological weapons - 18 USC 229 criminalizes the production, acquisition, and/or possession of chemical weapons by persons anywhere in the US other than those persons specifically exempted in the statute or its implementing regulations. 18 USC 175 has similar provisions for biological weapons.

Obstruction to clinic entrances - Under 18 USC 248 you can be held criminally liable for conduct anywhere in the United States for interfering with, intimidation, or causing injury to someone attempting to enter a clinic (even private or state owned property, not federal property) for reproductive services or a place of religious worship.

18 USC 1470 - criminalizes transfer of obscene material to minors. Applies anywhere in the United States, on federal, state, or privately owned property.

Theft of trade secrets - criminal liability applies anywhere in the United States, on federal, state, or privately owned property for the theft of trade secrets 18 USC 1832.

And a few others that need little discussion; The Securities & Exchange Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

And BTW - I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how 18 USC 926B can allow nationwide carry of concealed weapons for current and retired LEOs.

 

[Hugh Damright]

think about how your driver's license works. It's the same regardless of which state you go to.

A driver's license is something that every State issues and is not something that is being forced on any State against its will. Besides, things like driver's licenses and marriage licenses are generally recognized by other countries, and obviously CCW permits are not comparable. I think my example of a prostitution license is more like a CCW permit because it is something that not every State allows.

 

[FallenPhoenix]

The states do have the authority to place restrictions on driver's licenses though. In some states you have restrictions until you are 18, others you are completely free from restriction when you are 16. I thought it was a good comparison to a CCW just more prolific and widely accepted.

 

[Handy]

I don't understand how that list is "3 ways". The first and third seem to be the same (each state recognizes everyone else's), or the first and the second are the same (Fed's force states).

Could someone explain how it breaks down into three.



As I said in the other thread, this whole idea of reciprocity against state will is terrifying. No other state should be able to license their citizens to do something in your state that you can't do yourself.

1. Keep trucking with each individual state - fine.
2. National CCW license (like a international driver's license) - dandy.
3. Forced reciprocity in non-CCL states - unequal protection under the law, and extremely bad news. You might as well make new laws that licenses only white people or rich people to do things - it's that much of a slap in the face.

 

[shaggy]

3. Forced reciprocity in non-CCL states - unequal protection under the law, and extremely bad news. You might as well make new laws that licenses only white people or rich people to do things - it's that much of a slap in the face.

But Handy, that could be a good thing. If a very restrictive state like NY, CA or NJ realized their own citizens had less rights in their state than a resident of say, Arizona, visiting in their state, how long do you think it would be before the people of the restrictive state forced their legislature to act to change the law to give similar rights to thir own citizens? At least to make their state licensing process somewhat easier to afford their own citizens a right to carry. Maybe not as unrestricted as AZ or VT, but to create a licensing scheme that isn't quite so onerous? Personally, I think the state systems would ease up fast, as there would be little incentive for a state to continue with a difficult CCW process for its own citizens when out of staters could easily carry in the state.

 

[Handy]

Shaggy, "could" is alot to ask. In Cali's case, I'd say "probably not".


My state does not have the right to tell your state what to do. If the majority of states want something for their citizens, that's why we have a NATIONAL Congress to pass laws for ALL citizens.


If I'm back in Wisconsin and someone from Vermont is carrying when I can't - who do I complain to? My legislature didn't make the law and has no power to stop it. I'm not being represented, and I can't do anything to stop Mr. Vermont from doing whatever he wants in MY state.


You guys are looking at this with the rose colored glasses of "CCL is ALWAYS a good thing". But just like all real world issues, it might not be. If Texas decides to issue CCLs to felons, this reciprocity would let Texas put legally armed felons in YOUR state. Unlikely, but not impossible.

If you want to carry in all states by virtue of a license, that license has to be ratified by a body that at least represents all the people affected by it. Anything else is the most blatant violation of our fundamental rights.

It doesn't matter if it is a license for gambling, prostitution, liquor, guns, polygamy, construction or environmental concerns. As pro-2A people, we must keep our support of the Constitutional ideals unblemished, or our cause is without legal merit.

 

[USP45usp]

Handy is correct.

If we start "forcing" states using the federal government to do so we will be no better then the anti's when they did this with their awb and other gun control laws.

We would be just as unConstitutional to do this as they are with what they are doing.

In order to get our licenses (actually, Rights without a license) recognized we either have to get SCOTUS to declare once and for all that the 2nd means what it says or, work at grass roots levels to vote in and demand government, State and Federal, to recognize our Rights under the Bill of Rights.

Yes, slow and painful but if start doing the same thing that the anti's do to us (by force) then we'd be no better then they.

Wayne

 

[LAK]

Shaggy,

You either did not read all my posts - or did not read them in entirety. Either way you are off the rails again. Before you start running your illiterate keyboard again maybe you should read them again.

The codes you cite have not been tested in court - or the defense has not challenged based on jurisdiction. Go back, read the cases.

Read Meredith v. United States and tell us all that Federal jurisdiction for the Federal Torts Claims Act is "not territorial". Read United States v. Cotroni and tell us all that Federal jurisdiction for Federal wiretap laws is "not territorial". Read Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc and Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc and tell us all again that "Federal law" just rules everywhere it flows, like some magic wand.

"It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor." - United States v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 1974)

 

[LAK]

Shaggy

And BTW - I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how 18 USC 926B can allow nationwide carry of concealed weapons for current and retired LEOs.

Me explain this legislative perversion? I don't think so. Maybe you should ask your State Legislature and District Attorney - I'd be interested in what they tell you.

 

[shaggy]

You either did not read all my posts - or did not read them in entirety. Either way you are off the rails again. Before you start running your illiterate keyboard again maybe you should read them again.

I read them LAK, and I read the cases which you obviously didn't read. Heck, I even found the anti-government, militia, tax-protestor, tin-foil hat websites where you likely dredged them up.

You really need to look a little more carefully - those websites only tell half the truth...if that much. One area of exclusive federal jurisdiction is geographically limited to federal lands, enclaves, and possessions. That does not mean other areas of federal jurisdiction are also limited to those same geographic boundaries. Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, military bases, federal building, etc., but it also has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate commerce which can include anyone in any state, on federal, state, local, or privately owned property. Rather than continue this in two seperate threads, I've addressed your post above in the other CCW thread:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1522483#post1522483

(see my post #76)

 

[LAK]

Shaggy,

You are dodging. You are jumping back and forth between stating or implying that Federal law simply "trumps" State laws, and then switching back to the "commerce clause" bs. The "commerce clause", as already discussed, and like the other clauses in the Constitution, has limited scope. For good reason.

Under it's current perverted "interpretations" one could go on stretching it and eventually argue, "that whether the citizens of the States buy exclusively Heinz or Hunt's ketchup affects interstate commerce and is therefore subject to Congressional regulation". I could argue, "that what namebrand, color, how many sheets, of toilet paper I flush down the toilet affects interstate commerce and therefore it is subject to Congressional control".

If you can articulate a rational, logical and tangible effect that the privileged few who have permission and permits by their States of residence to carry concealed handguns in States where it is illegal under State law will have on interstate commerce thus throwing it under the Federal Congress under the "commerce clause" ..... let's hear it.

 

[shaggy]

Lak

You are dodging. You are jumping back and forth between stating or implying that Federal law simply "trumps" State laws, and then switching back to the "commerce clause" bs. The "commerce clause", as already discussed, and like the other clauses in the Constitution, has limited scope. For good reason.

I've explained this so many times now, I'm not going to waste my time to do it again. If you're incapable of understanding go back and re-read my posts in this thread and the other one (linked above) .

Under it's current perverted "interpretations" one could go on stretching it and eventually argue, "that whether the citizens of the States buy exclusively Heinz or Hunt's ketchup affects interstate commerce and is therefore subject to Congressional regulation".

Yes you could, if there wasn't that little bill of attainder and the 5th Amendment thing to contend with.

I could argue, "that what namebrand, color, how many sheets, of toilet paper I flush down the toilet affects interstate commerce and therefore it is subject to Congressional control".

Some of that you probably could, though I have my doubts as to how color or namebrand of toilet paper could substantially affect interstate commerce. See Wickard.

If you can articulate a rational, logical and tangible effect that the privileged few who have permission and permits by their States of residence to carry concealed handguns in States where it is illegal under State law will have on interstate commerce thus throwing it under the Federal Congress under the "commerce clause" ..... let's hear it.

Again, you ask this in the above linked thread. I already answered this question for you days ago in the other thread, but not surprisingly, you either didn't bother to read my post, you forgot, or you simply didn't comprehend it. So which is it?

 

[shaggy]

You are dodging. You are jumping back and forth between stating or implying that Federal law simply "trumps" State laws, and then switching back to the "commerce clause" bs. The "commerce clause", as already discussed, and like the other clauses in the Constitution, has limited scope. For good reason.

Oh really...

The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. . . . The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. . . . It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.​

United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119.

 

[Handy]

You guys keep turning this into a legal thesis, which completely buries they real question:

Is such a law just, does such a law further our claim to a Constitutional right?



Arguing the minuitia to this degree subverts the issue and makes it inaccessible to those interested in the general question. It would be nice if you all could contain this Commerce Clause stuff to the one thread you've already shotgunned with it.