Three Ways to CCW Reciprocity

[Unique 5.7]

Cap'n Mike - Nice thread. We here in Ohio, who just got CCW are saying "what now?" to each other.
Options #1 and #2 have a problem.
I think many gun owners are more states rights oriented than Federal gov't rights oriented. Many gun owners might not want to make a precedent of this, even though it would be expedient for this issue. IOW, raise your hands everybody who thinks CCW AND gay marriage should have federal reciprocity. Come to think of it, maybe I'm wrong and a poll should be done.
Option #3 looks best to me. It is hard work, but it is also work that would be harder to undo. In CCW states, it may pay off more to now bring up questions about the legality of banning CCW in places of public accommodation. What will the antis, mainly well intentioned (just misguided,imo) liberals, have to say when they have used public accommodation arguments to further civil rights?

 

[shaggy]

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.

Handy, you are correct and I apologize to the other members of TFL.

LAK; you agreeable? Can we confine our discussion to the other thread and wrap up our 'shootout at the Constitutional corral' over there?

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

Either on a state by state basis , or by federal action, it really does nothing to further any Constitutional right IMHO. The only way to further our rights with respect to the 2nd Amendment would be for the Supreme Court to hold the 2nd Amendment incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment. As it is now, the 2nd Amendment is inapplicable against any state laws or actions. Additionally, the Supreme Court has never held the RKBA to be a "fundamental" right., nor has it ever ruled on a violation of the 2nd Amendment in which a standard for Constitutional review was established. For any furtherance of a "right" we need action by the Supreme Court. Congress can pass laws to recognize a "right" but only pursuant to an authority to legislate granted in the Constitution, which almost inextricably leads us back to the Commerce Clause. (..and on that note, I'll shut the hell up.)

 

[LAK]

Handy,

Abandoning the legal basis and viewing this as just a means to an end is fine. Except that the validity and application of the 2nd Amendment relies on a legal basis. If this issue was simply a matter of the right - codified or not - it would not be framed within the context of State "permits".

 

[LAK]

Shaggy

It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress

And it is precisely this perversion that has us where we are now, and is sending us further down that road to a centralized Federal State.

Continue supporting this - and ajoining our fight with it as an acceptable principle - and you can all kiss your "rights" goodbye much sooner than you think.

 

[Handy]

LAK,

I don't doubt that there is a legal basis, I'm just saying that there is a more basic legal basis to argue about than what you guys are into.

You can "CC" until you're blue in the face, but that isn't going to matter if issues like equal protection and representation are trampled as that obscure matter is upheld.

Forest for the trees.

 

[LAK]

Handy,

I am with you all the way on the equal protection aspects etc. At the heart of the matter is the rights issue - and to me reducing it to a CC permit provision doesn't cut it.

But we already have the subject issue right codified at Federal level, and in many State Constitutions. To me the idea of passing any law "allowing" some people to exercize this right in a prescribed manner is akin to passing a law "allowing [some people] to reproduce with a permit". Or in this specific context "allowing [some people] to travel out of their home state with a permit".